HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 26, 2017 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
www.rctc.org
MEETING AGENDA
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
1:30 p.m.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
HYATT PALM SPRINGS
285 North Palm Canyon Drive
Palm Springs, 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 Lemon 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 his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous
minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty
(30) 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.
COMM-COMM-00065
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
January 26, 2017
Page 2
5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS – The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a
finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the
attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an
item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the
Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
6. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY ON VINE STREET TO RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Commission to approve the conveyance of unused property to the Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA).
7. AGREEMENT FOR INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT TOLL SERVICES
Page 23
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 16‐31‐043‐00 to Kapsch TrafficCom Transportation NA Inc.
(Kapsch) as the toll services provider (TSP) to design, implement, operate and maintain
a toll collection system (toll services) in support of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes
project (project) in the amount of $58,878,892, plus a contingency amount of
$5,887,889, for a total amount not to exceed $64,766,781;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency
amount as may be required by the project;
4) Authorize staff to issue Notice to Proceed No. 1 under the agreement in an amount not
to exceed $1,065,000 after execution of the agreement;
5) Authorize staff to issue Notice to Proceed No. 2 for the remainder of the agreement
work after financial close including the successful sale of bonds and funding of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) Transportation Investment Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan and TSP compliance with the agreement requirements; and
6) Authorize the payment of passthrough items in an amount not to exceed $5 million.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
January 26, 2017
Page 3
8. RESOLUTION CONSIDERING STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVING THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT AS A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Page 33
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 17‐002, “Resolution Considering the Final Environmental Impact
Report (SCH # 2004091040) Adopting Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the State Route 79 Realignment
Project”;
2) Approve the State Route 79 Realignment project to move into the right of way (ROW)
acquisition phase for environmental mitigation properties;
3) Approve Agreement No. 02‐31‐043‐10, Amendment No. 10 to Agreement
No. 02‐31‐043‐00, with CH2M to perform post environmental impact report
(EIR)/environmental impact statement (EIS) closeout tasks including biological
resource mitigation in the amount of $358,355, plus a contingency of $35,835, for a
total of $394,190, for a total amount not to exceed $32,136,356; and
4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
9. AGREEMENT FOR A REGIONAL TRUCK STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF A REGIONAL LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE
Page 227
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 17‐65‐005‐00 to WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. for a regional
truck study and development and implementation of a regional logistics mitigation fee
for a two‐year term, in an amount of $925,017, plus a contingency amount of $49,983,
for a total amount not to exceed $975,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency
amount as may be required for these services.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
January 26, 2017
Page 4
10. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ADMINISTERING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM
Page 261
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Provide direction to staff regarding the potential evaluation of the administration of
the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program
– specifically addressing the responsibilities of the Commission and the Western
Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) with respect to the TUMF program; and
2) Should the Commission direct staff to evaluate potential changes to the administration
of the Western Riverside County TUMF program, the Chair should appoint an ad hoc
Committee of Western Riverside County Commissioners that will return to the
Commission with recommendations within 120 days.
11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report
on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities.
12. ADJOURNMENT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ROLL CALL
JANUARY 26, 2017
1:30 P.M. COMMISSION MEETING
Present Absent
1.
County of Riverside, District
County of Riverside, District II
County of Riverside, District III
County of Riverside, District IV
County of Riverside, District V
City of Banning
City of Beaumont
City of Blythe
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
O c3,4%.4L;v Q.d 2 e.m .
17Y
a
771
0
0
0
d
City of Corona
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Eastvale
City of Hemet
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of J u ru pa Valley
City of La Quinta
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Menifee
City of Moreno Valley
City of Murrieta
City of Norco
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Perris
0
0
a
0
0
0
D
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Riverside
City of San Jacinto
City of Temecula
City of Wildomar
Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8
❑n. - n
n.'
ci
n in
.r.
�,a n
,
Riverside County Transportation Commission
YES
County of Riverside, District I
County of Riverside, District II
County of Riverside, District III
County of Riverside, District IV
County of Riverside, District V
City of Banning
City of Beaumont
City of Blythe
City of Caimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Corona
City of Desert Hot Springs
0
City of Eastvale
City of Hemet
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of Jurupa Valley
City of La Quinta
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Menifee
City of Moreno Valley
City of Murrieta
City of Norco
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Perris
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Riverside
City of San Jacinto
City of Temecula
City of Wildomar
VOTE TALLY
JANUARY 26, 2017
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10
ABSTAIN NO NOT PRESENT
r3 0 tn
a 0 in .
r".3 (71 CI
a o o
CI CI r71
a n a
0
O
0
O
0
O O O
O O
O � O
O O 0C3
O O O
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
O
r71
O
0
AGENDA ITEM 6
Agenda Item 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 26, 2017
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Conveyance of Property on Vine Street to Riverside Transit Agency
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to approve the conveyance of unused property to the Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
After years of discussion, the RTA Board of Directors on January 22, 2015, agreed to vacate the
Downtown Transit Center, located between University Avenue and Mission Inn Avenue just west
of Market Street, and relocate to Vine Street across the street from the Commission’s
Riverside‐Downtown Station.
Working in conjunction with the city of Riverside, RTA’s agreement to vacate the Downtown
Transit Center required the city to transfer two parcels to RTA ownership, located at
4015 Vine Street and 4085 Vine Street, as well as grant a perpetual access easement on an
adjacent third parcel managed by the Riverside Public Utilities. The ultimate goal of this move
and the parcel transfers is to provide RTA with enough space in order to construct a functional
transit center to take the place of the vacated downtown terminal.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission used to operate an overflow parking lot located directly across the street from
its Riverside‐Downtown Station. This parcel, however, was severely impacted as a result of the
right of way needed to facilitate the construction of the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle
lanes project. As such, it is no longer used for parking due to its irregular size and shape.
While of unusable shape for parking purposes, RTA’s intent is to use it for the provision of driver
facilities, and as such, its short term plans include the placement of a small trailer and restroom
facilities in support of its operations for a new transit center on Vine Street.
1
Agenda Item 6
Next Steps
Given its lack of usefulness to the Riverside‐Downtown Station, staff recommends the
Commission approve the conveyance with the following provisions:
1. The conveyance of the property is to be at no cost to the Commission or RTA other than
those fees incurred for title and associated costs, for which RTA agrees to pay.
2. RTA shall accept the parcel in “as‐is” condition with full indemnification to the
Commission against any issues arising after the conveyance is complete.
3. The property will continue to be utilized for the purposes of a transit center, and should
RTA determine to discontinue that use, RTA shall then reconvey the property back to the
Commission at no cost.
There is no financial impact to the budget with this action; however, this will result in a reduction
of the Commission’s capital assets in its government‐wide financial statements. The property
was originally purchased using 1989 Measure A Western County highway and rail funds; there
are no issues with respect to state or federal funding restrictions on the conveyance. The draft
agreement between the Commission and RTA is attached for reference along with a map
detailing the subject parcel and the RTA Board report.
Attachments:
1) Vine Street Site Map
2) Agreement for Conveyance of Real Property (Draft)
3) RTA Board Report
2
ATTACHMENT 1
3
17336.00603\29330101.2 1
AGREEMENT FOR CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY
(Remnant Portions of APNs 215‐350‐018 and 215‐341‐004)
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY (“Agreement”), is entered into
as of this _____ day of ____________, 2017 (“Effective Date”), by and between RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public agency of the State of California
(“Transferor”) and RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY, a public agency (“Transferee”).
A. Transferor owns that certain vacant land designated as Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 215‐
350‐018 and 215‐341‐004, located generally south of Tenth Street, between State Route 91 and
Vine Street in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California.
B. The above parcels were acquired by Transferor and portions thereof have been
utilized in connection with improvements to the adjacent State Route 91. Remnant portions of
such parcels, as described and depicted in Exhibits “A” and “B” attached hereto (“Property”) will
be of no further practical use to Transferor and Transferor is willing to convey the Property to
Transferee upon the terms and conditions described herein.
C. Transferee provides public transportation within the City of Riverside and
surrounding areas and desires to acquire the Property in connection with the construction of a
“multi‐modal center” adjacent to the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station, located on the east
side of Vine Street, immediately east of the Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
AGREEMENT TO CONVEY
1.1 Conveyance of Property. Transferor agrees to convey and Transferee agrees to
acquire the Property upon the terms and conditions described herein. Conveyance of the
Property will include all existing privileges, rights, easements and appurtenances belonging
thereto, together with any interest of Transferor in streets, alleys and other rights of way
adjacent thereto. Conveyance of the Property to Transferee will be by a recordable Grant Deed
substantially in form and content as set forth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto (“Grant Deed”).
1.2 Creation of Easements. Prior to conveyance of the Property to Transferee,
Transferor will (a) convey certain State Route 91 right of way property to Caltrans; and (b) create
required ingress/egress and utility easements in favor of the City of Riverside, all as depicted in
the Right of Way Appraisal Map attached hereto as Exhibit “D”.
ATTACHMENT 2
4
17336.00603\29330101.2 2
ARTICLE 2
ESCROW
2.1 No Escrow. Because there will be no funds to administer and no charges requiring
proration, Transferor and Transferee agree that the Grant Deed will be delivered to Transferee
and the Property conveyed to Transferee without the use of an escrow. If Transferee at any time
desires to close this transaction through the use of an escrow, Transferee will be solely
responsible for all costs of such escrow.
ARTICLE 3
COSTS AND PRORATIONS
3.1 Costs. Because of the status of Transferor and Transferee as public entities, there
will be no fee for recording the Grant Deed (pursuant to California Government Code Section
27383) and no documentary transfer tax (pursuant to Revenue & Taxation Code Section 11922).
3.2 Prorations. The Property has not been subject to real property taxation due to
Transferor’s status as a public entity. There are no other proratable expenses affecting the
Property. Therefore, there will be no prorations between Transferor and Transferee at Closing
(as defined herein).
ARTICLE 4
DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED BY TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE AT CLOSING
4.1 Closing; Documents. Recording of the Grant Deed in the Official Records of
Riverside County, California shall constitute “Closing” of this transaction. In order to facilitate
Closing, Transferor and Transferee will provide the following documents:
4.1.1 From Transferor. Transferor will provide to Transferee a fully executed
and acknowledged Grant Deed and a Documentary Transfer Tax Affidavit.
4.1.2 From Transferee. Transferee will provide the Preliminary Change of
Ownership Report and a Certificate of Acceptance, to be attached to the Grant Deed for purposes
of recording.
4.1.3 Additional Documents. Transferor and Transferee will provide such
additional documents as may be reasonably required in order to carry out the purpose of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 5
REVIEW PERIOD
5.1 Transferee’s Review Period. Transferee shall have a period of forty‐five (45) days
following the Effective Date (“Review Period”) within which to review the status of title and the
physical status of the Property. Transferee’s election to proceed with this transaction beyond
the Review Period will constitute Transferee’s approval of the condition of the Property with
5
17336.00603\29330101.2 3
respect to title matters, environmental matters and all other aspects of the physical condition of
the Property.
5.2 Title Report. Transferee may obtain from Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
Company (“Title Company”) a current preliminary title report (“Title Report”) for the Property
with hyperlinks for all title exception documents. Transferor advises Transferee that a current
Title Report for the Property may not yet reflect the fee and easement conveyances described in
Section 1.2 above.
5.3 Transferee’s Investigations of the Property. During the Review Period,
Transferee and its agents and contractors shall have the right to conduct such investigations and
enter upon the Property to conduct, at Transferee’s expense, such tests and investigations as
may be necessary for Transferee to determine whether any matter would materially hinder or
make economically unfeasible Transferee’s intended use of the Property. Prior to Transferee or
its agents or contractors entering upon the Property, Transferee shall (i) give Transferor forty‐
eight (48) hours prior notice of such entry, and (ii) provide satisfactory evidence to Transferor
that Transferee, or its agents or contractors, have obtained commercial general liability
insurance, with limits of not less than $200,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 in
aggregate; workers compensation insurance in statutory limits and employers liability insurance
with limits not less than $100,000.00 each incident; and umbrella excess liability insurance excess
of the underlying commercial general liability and employers liability insurance with limits not
less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 aggregate.
5.4 Indemnification. Transferee will defend, indemnify and hold Transferor free and
harmless from and against any and all claims, damages and liabilities relating to or arising out of
Transferee’s exercise of its rights under Section 5.3 above. Transferee will assure that all costs
associated with its conduct of the investigations are fully satisfied and that the Property is not
subjected to any liens with respect thereto.
5.5 Transferor Materials. Within five (5) Business Days following the Effective Date,
Transferor will make available to Transferee copies of documents and other materials regarding
the physical condition of the Property (“Transferor Materials”) to the extent that the same are
in Transferor’s possession or under its control. The Transferor Materials are made available
without warranty or representation by Transferor regarding the accuracy or completeness of the
information contained therein. If this Agreement and the transaction described herein are
terminated for any reason other than a material uncured default by Transferor, Transferee shall
return the Transferor Materials to Transferor within three (3) Business Days following such
termination and agrees that it will not disclose the Transferor Materials to any other person or
entity.
ARTICLE 6
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
6.1 Transferor’s Representations and Warranties. Transferor will convey the
Property “AS‐IS” with all faults, but represents and warrants to Transferee as follows:
6
17336.00603\29330101.2 4
6.1.1 Authority. Transferor has full power and authority to sell, convey and
transfer the Property as provided for in this Agreement and this Agreement is binding and
enforceable against Transferor.
6.1.2 Hazardous Materials. To Transferor’s actual knowledge Transferor has not
caused any Hazardous Materials to be placed or disposed of on or at the Property or any part
thereof in any manner or quantity which would constitute a violation of any Environmental Law,
nor has Transferor received any written notices that the Property is in violation of any
Environmental Law. As used herein, (a) the term “Hazardous Materials” shall mean any
hazardous, toxic or dangerous substance, material, waste, gas or particulate matter which is
defined as such for purposes of regulation by any local government authority, the State of
California, or the United States Government, including, but not limited to, any material or
substance which is (i) defined as a “hazardous waste,” “hazardous material,” “hazardous
substance,” “extremely hazardous waste,” or “restricted hazardous waste” under any provision
of California law, (ii) petroleum, (iii) asbestos, (iv) polychlorinated biphenyl, (v) radioactive
material, (vi) designated as a “hazardous substance” pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq. (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1317), (vii) defined as a “hazardous waste”
pursuant to Section 1004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et
seq. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 6903), or (viii) defined as a “hazardous substance” pursuant to Section 101 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
9601 et seq. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601); and (b) the term “Environmental Laws” shall mean all statutes
specifically described in the definition of “Hazardous Materials” and all other federal, state or
local laws, regulations or orders relating to or imposing liability or standards of conduct
concerning any Hazardous Material.
6.2 Transferee’s Representations and Warranties. Except as expressly set forth in
this Agreement, Transferee is relying upon no warranties, express or implied, oral or written,
from Transferor regarding the Property and, upon Closing, Transferee will have accepted the
Property as‐is, with all faults. Transferee represents and warrants to Transferor as follows:
6.2.1 Agreements. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement by
Transferee nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will result in any
breach or violation of or default under any judgment, decree, order, mortgage, lease, agreement,
indenture or other instrument to which Transferee is a party.
6.2.2 Authority. Transferee has full power and authority to execute this
Agreement and acquire the Property as provided for in this Agreement and this Agreement is
binding and enforceable against Transferee.
6.2.3 As‐Is Acquisition. TRANSFEREE ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT,
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED HEREIN, TRANSFEROR HAS NOT MADE, DOES
NOT MAKE AND SPECIFICALLY NEGATES AND DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES,
PROMISES, COVENANTS, AGREEMENTS OR GUARANTIES OF ANY KIND OR CHARACTER
WHATSOEVER, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ORAL OR WRITTEN, PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE,
OF, AS TO, CONCERNING OR WITH RESPECT TO (I) VALUE; (II) THE INCOME TO BE DERIVED FROM
7
17336.00603\29330101.2 5
THE PROPERTY; (III) THE NATURE, QUALITY OR CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE WATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGY; (IV) THE COMPLIANCE OF OR BY THE
PROPERTY OR ITS OPERATION WITH ANY LAWS, RULES, ORDINANCES OR REGULATIONS OF ANY
APPLICABLE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY OR BODY; (V) COMPLIANCE WITH ANY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, POLLUTION OR LAND USE LAWS, RULES, REGULATION, ORDERS
OR REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TITLE III OF THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE, THE FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, THE FEDERAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS AT 40 C.F.R., PART 261, THE
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980, AS
AMENDED, THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976, THE CLEAN WATER
ACT, THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION ACT, THE
TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT, AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER ANY OF THE
FOREGOING; (VI) THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT, ON, UNDER, OR
ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY; (VII) THE CONTENT, COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF ANY DUE
DILIGENCE MATERIALS DELIVERED BY TRANSFEROR TO TRANSFEREE OR PRELIMINARY REPORT
REGARDING TITLE; (VIII) DEFICIENCY OF ANY UNDERSHORING; (IX) DEFICIENCY OF ANY
DRAINAGE; (X) THE FACT THAT ALL OR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY MAY BE LOCATED ON OR
NEAR AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT LINE OR A FLOOD ZONE; OR (XI) WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER
MATTER. TRANSFEREE FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT IT HAS OR WILL HAVE BEEN
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND REVIEW INFORMATION AND
DOCUMENTATION AFFECTING THE PROPERTY, AND THAT, EXCEPT FOR TRANSFEROR’S EXPRESS
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES CONTAINED HEREIN, TRANSFEREE IS RELYING SOLELY ON
ITS OWN INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPERTY AND REVIEW OF SUCH INFORMATION AND
DOCUMENTATION, AND NOT ON ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED OR TO BE PROVIDED BY
TRANSFEROR. TRANSFEREE FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ANY INFORMATION
MADE AVAILABLE TO TRANSFEREE OR PROVIDED OR TO BE PROVIDED BY OR ON BEHALF OF
TRANSFEROR WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY WAS OBTAINED FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES
AND THAT TRANSFEROR HAS NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OR VERIFICATION
OF SUCH INFORMATION AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF SUCH INFORMATION. TRANSFEREE AGREES TO FULLY AND IRREVOCABLY
RELEASE ALL SUCH SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND PREPARERS OF INFORMATION AND
DOCUMENTATION AFFECTING THE PROPERTY WHICH WERE RETAINED BY TRANSFEROR FROM
ANY AND ALL CLAIMS THAT THEY MAY NOW HAVE OR HEREAFTER ACQUIRE AGAINST SUCH
SOURCES AND PREPARERS OF INFORMATION FOR ANY COSTS, LOSS, LIABILITY, DAMAGE,
EXPENSE, DEMAND, ACTION OR CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING FROM SUCH INFORMATION OR
DOCUMENTATION. EXCEPT FOR TRANSFEROR’S EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
CONTAINED IN SECTION 6.1 ABOVE, TRANSFEROR IS NOT LIABLE OR BOUND IN ANY MANNER BY
ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS, REPRESENTATIONS OR INFORMATION PERTAINING TO
THE PROPERTY, OR THE OPERATION THEREOF, FURNISHED BY ANY REAL ESTATE BROKER, AGENT,
EMPLOYEE, SERVANT OR OTHER PERSON. TRANSFEREE FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES
THAT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EXCEPT FOR TRANSFEROR’S EXPRESS
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES CONTAINED IN SECTION 6.1 ABOVE, THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE PROPERTY AS PROVIDED FOR HEREIN IS MADE ON AN "AS IS" CONDITION AND BASIS WITH
8
17336.00603\29330101.2 6
ALL FAULTS, AND THAT TRANSFEROR HAS NO OBLIGATIONS TO MAKE REPAIRS, REPLACEMENTS
OR IMPROVEMENTS EXCEPT AS MAY OTHERWISE BE EXPRESSLY STATED HEREIN. TRANSFEREE
REPRESENTS, WARRANTS AND COVENANTS TO TRANSFEROR THAT, EXCEPT FOR TRANSFEROR’S
EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES SPECIFIED IN THIS AGREEMENT, TRANSFEREE IS
RELYING SOLELY UPON TRANSFEREE’S OWN INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPERTY.
6.2.4 General Waiver. With respect to the waivers and releases set forth in
Section 6.2.3, above, Transferee expressly waives any of its rights granted under California Civil
Code Section 1542, which provides as follows: “A general release does not extend to claims
which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing
the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement
with the debtor.”
___________________
Transferee’s Initials
ARTICLE 7
MISCELLANEOUS
7.1 Payment of Real Estate Brokers and Consultants. Each party represents to the
other that no real estate broker has been used in connection with this transaction. Transferee
agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Transferor harmless from and against any claim for a real
estate broker’s commission or fee by any party claiming to have represented Transferee in
connection with this transaction. Transferor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Transferee
harmless from and against any claim for a real estate broker’s commission or fee by any party
claiming to have represented Transferor in connection with this transaction. The indemnification
obligations under this Section 7.1 shall survive the Closing or any termination of this Agreement
for any reason whatsoever.
7.2 Notices. All notices and other communications which are required to be, or which
may be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be delivered at the addresses
set out hereinbelow. Notice may be given by personal delivery, recognized overnight courier, by
United States mail or by facsimile transmission in the manner set forth below. Notice shall be
deemed to have been duly given (a) if by personal delivery, on the first to occur of the date of
actual receipt or refusal of delivery by any person at the intended address, (b) if by overnight
courier, on the first (1st) Business Day after being delivered to a recognized overnight courier, (c)
if by mail, on the third (3rd) Business Day after being deposited in the United States mail, certified
or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or (d) by facsimile transmission
shall be deemed to have been given on the next business day after being transmitted, as
evidenced by the confirmation slip generated by the sender’s facsimile machine addressed as
follows:
If to Transferor: Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
9
17336.00603\29330101.2 7
Riverside, CA 92502‐2208
Attn: Real Property Agent
Telephone: (951)787‐7141
With a copy to: Best Best & Krieger LLP
3390 University Avenue,5th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Steve DeBaun
Telephone: (951)686‐1450
If to Transferee: Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517
Attn: Chief Executive Officer
Telephone:_____________________
or to such other address as either party may from time to time specify as its address for the
receipt of notices hereunder, in a notice to the other party. Notices given by an attorney shall be
deemed to constitute notice from that party.
7.3 Possession. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Transferee at the
Closing.
7.4 Assignment. Transferee may not assign or pledge any of its rights hereunder
without the prior written consent of Transferor. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall
be binding upon the parties hereto and each of their successors and assigns.
7.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the entire understanding of the
parties and there are no further or other agreements or understandings, written or oral, in effect
between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof except as may be set forth in writing
executed by both parties contemporaneously with or subsequent to this Agreement.
7.6 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement or any application thereof
shall be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and other applications thereof
shall not be affected thereby.
7.7 Captions; Number. The captions contained in this Agreement are for the
convenience of reference only, and shall not affect the meaning, interpretation or construction
of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, the singular form shall include the plural and the
plural shall include the singular, to the extent that the context renders it appropriate.
10
17336.00603\29330101.2 8
7.8 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be
one and the same instrument.
7.9 Governing Law. This Agreement has been executed and delivered, and is to be
performed, in the State of California, and this Agreement and all rights, obligations and liabilities
hereunder shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State
of California. Transferee hereby irrevocably waives any objection that it may now or hereafter
have to the laying of venue of any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this
Agreement brought in any federal or state court sitting in Riverside County, California.
7.10 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
7.11 Modification. The provisions of this Agreement may not be amended, changed or
modified orally, but only by an agreement in writing signed by the party against whom any
amendment, change or modification is sought.
7.12 Waiver. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, no waiver by
a party of any breach of this Agreement or of any warranty or representation hereunder by the
other party shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach by such other party (whether
preceding or succeeding and whether or not of the same or similar nature) and no acceptance of
payment or performance by a party after any breach by the other party shall be deemed to be a
waiver of any breach of this Agreement or of any representation or warranty hereunder by such
other party whether or not the first party knows such breach at the time it accepts such payment
or performance. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, no failure or delay by
a party to exercise any right it may have by reason of the default of the other party shall operate
as a waiver of default or modification of this Agreement or shall prevent the exercise of any right
by the first party while the other party continues to be so in default.
7.13 Business Days. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, if any date
specified in this Agreement for the Closing Date or for commencement or expiration of time
periods for termination or approvals or for notice occurs on a day other than a Business Day, then
any such date shall be postponed to the following Business Day. As used herein, “Business Day”
shall mean any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, a holiday observed by national banks or a day
that is a non‐working day for Transferor.
7.14 Attorney Fees. In the event of any dispute arising out of the enforcement or
interpretation of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney
fees and costs, to include any attorney fees or costs on appeal.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS
11
17336.00603\29330101.2 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
TRANSFEROR:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION, a public agency of the State of
California
By:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
By:
Steven DeBaun, Attorney for
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSFEREE:
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY,
a public agency
By:
Name:
Its:
12
17336.00603\29330101.2 Exhibit A
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of the Property
[ATTACHED]
13
17336.00603\29330101.2 Exhibit B
EXHIBIT “B”
Depiction of the Property
[ATTACHED]
14
17336.00603\29330101.2 1
EXHIBIT “C”
Grant Deed
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 215‐350‐018 and 215‐341‐004 Exempt from Recording Fees per Govt. Code §27383
No Documentary Transfer Tax per Rev. & Taxation Code §11922
GRANT DEED
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public agency ("Grantor") hereby grants to RIVERSIDE
TRANSIT AGENCY, a public agency (“Grantee”) all that certain real property situated in the City
of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California, more fully described in EXHIBIT “1” attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Dated: __________________
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION, a public agency of the State of
California
By:
(Name)
(Title)
15
17336.00603\29330101.2 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF )
On _______________ before me, ____________________________________ (here insert name
and title of the officer), personally appeared ____________________________________, who
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
16
Exhibit 1
17336.00603\29330101.2
EXHIBIT “1” TO GRANT DEED
Legal Description
[ATTACHED]
17
17336.00603\29330101.2
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed to which
this Certificate of Acceptance is attached,
from: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public agency of the
State of California (“Grantor”)
to: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY, a public agency (“Grantee”)
is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of Grantee pursuant to authority granted
by Grantee’s governing board, and Grantee hereby consents to recordation of said Grant Deed.
Dated: ________________________ RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY,
a public agency
By: _____________________________
18
17336.00603\29330101.2 Exhibit D
EXHIBIT “D”
Right of Way Appraisal Map
[ATTACHED]
19
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
1825 Third Street
Riverside, CA 92507
December 7, 2016
TO: BOARD BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer
FROM: Vince Rouzaud, Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer
SUBJECT: Authorization to enter into an Agreement with the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (“RCTC”) for Conveyance of Real Property
Identified as County of Riverside Assessor’s Parcel No.’s 215-350-018 and
215-341-004
Summary: On January 22, 2015, as part of the Agency’s Comprehensive Operational
Analysis, the Board approved a new Operating Plan (“Operating Plan”) for
Downtown Riverside. The Operating Plan changes the way the Agency
delivers service in Downtown Riverside from a centralized spoke-and-hub
system to an on-street grid-system. The grid-system enables passengers
to transfer between routes at bus stops and eliminates the need for the
Agency to access the Downtown Transit Center. Although the existing
Transit Center has met the Agency’s needs for more than 30 years, this
location cannot support the Agency’s long-term expansion plans.
As part of the Operating Plan’s implementation, in May of this year the
Board authorized the award of an agreement to PTM General Engineering
Services for the upgrade of existing stops and construction of new bus stops
at 26 downtown locations. Improvements include new bus shelters,
benches, solar lighting and development of a temporary layover facility and
future mobility hub on Vine Street on property owned by the RCTC, City of
Riverside (“City”) and Riverside Public Utility (“RPU”). These parcels are
located directly across from the Metrolink Station and are identified more
specifically in Attachment A.
As mentioned previously, initially, this location will serve as a temporary bus
layover facility to meet the Agency’s timeline which calls for it to vacate the
Downtown Transit Center by January 2017 (Phase 1). Long term, staff plans
to conduct a needs analysis for the future development of a multi-modal
transit center (Phase 2).
ATTACHMENT 3
20
In exchange for vacating the Downtown Transit Center, the properties
owned by RCTC and the City will be transferred to the Agency. The Agency
will also be granted a long term easement by RPU for access to their parcel.
Staff has worked out the details for conveyance of the RCTC properties and
is currently finalizing the details for the transfer of the remaining City owned
parcels along with an easement for the RPU property. Upon approval and
execution of this agreement, staff will work with the RCTC to formalize the
property transfer.
Key provisions in the agreement include the following:
Because there will be no funds to administer and no fees requiring
proration, both parties agree that the conveyance of the property will
not require the use of an escrow.
The Agency will have forty-five (45) days following the effective date
of the agreement in which to review the status of title and the physical
status of the property.
The property will be transferred “as is”.
The property will be utilized for the eventual construction of a multi-
modal transit center.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost for the environmental Phase 1 study and Title fees is estimated to
be approximately $9,300 as detailed below:
Title Fees $3,800
Phase 1 Environmental Study $5,500
Contingency $1,000
Total $10,300
Lastly, staff is recommending a contingency amount of $1,000 to cover any
unforeseen expenses that may arise during the due diligence process.
Sufficient funds to cover this request are included in the Agency’s capital
budget in the form of State Transit Assistance funds (STA).
Recommendation:
Approve and recommend this item to the full Board of Directors for their
consideration as follows:
21
Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with the Riverside County
Transportation Commission for conveyance of real property
identified as County of Riverside Assessor’s Parcel No.’s 215-350-
018 and 215-341-004.
22
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 26, 2017
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Agreement for Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Toll Services
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 16‐31‐043‐00 to Kapsch TrafficCom Transportation NA Inc.
(Kapsch) as the toll services provider (TSP) to design, implement, operate and maintain a
toll collection system (toll services) in support of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project
(project) in the amount of $58,878,892, plus a contingency amount of $5,887,889, for a
total amount not to exceed $64,766,781;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency
amount as may be required by the project;
4) Authorize staff to issue Notice to Proceed No. 1 under the agreement in an amount not
to exceed $1,065,000 after execution of the agreement;
5) Authorize staff to issue Notice to Proceed No. 2 for the remainder of the agreement work
after financial close including the successful sale of bonds and funding of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) Transportation Investment Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan and TSP compliance with the agreement requirements; and
6) Authorize the payment of passthrough items in an amount not to exceed $5 million.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Project Description
The I‐15 Express Lanes project is part of the Commission’s 10‐Year Western Riverside County
Highway Delivery Plan and will improve I‐15 in northern Riverside County. The project includes
the construction of what is generally described as two tolled express lanes in each direction
between the I‐15/Cajalco Road interchange in Corona and the I‐15/State Route 60 interchange
just south of the Riverside/San Bernardino County line – approximately 14.6 miles. The
Commission will operate and maintain the tolled express lanes after opening.
23
Agenda Item 7
Procurement
On August 24, 2015, staff issued a request for expressions of interest (RFEI) inviting interested
firms or teams of firms in the project to submit an expression of interest including comments on
various procurement packaging strategies, tolling technical requirements, opportunities for
innovation, and potential risks. The RFEI was a due diligence effort and not part of the formal
procurement process. One of the key goals of this due diligence step was to obtain industry
feedback and input allowing staff to assess the various approaches to procure the required work
in order to provide the best value to the Commission. The packaging of the various required work
elements was critical in order to utilize the best‐value/competitively negotiated procurement
method that considers and evaluates both the price of a proposal and its qualitative technical
merits.
As presented to the Commission at its December 9, 2015 meeting, the most advantageous
procurement packaging option consisted of two separate procurements, one for the toll services
and one for design‐build civil work, with the toll services to be procured first.
The core scope of work for the toll services is broken into two major categories:
• Design and deployment consisting of design, installation, integration, testing, and
commissioning of the tolling system, including development of software and hardware
systems, establishment of the customer service center; and
• Toll operations and maintenance consisting of operation and maintenance of the
roadside toll system (including hardware, cameras, transponder readers, etc.) and
operation of the back office and customer service functions associated with tolling,
including the retail distribution of toll collection transponders, toll operations, collection,
and enforcement.
At its December 2015 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to perform a number of actions
related to the I‐15 Express Lanes project toll services procurement, including the following:
Undertake a procurement process using the Commission’s contract authority under the
Specialized Equipment Law (Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 130238) and Chapter 5 of
the Commission Procurement Policy Manual (procurement manual);
Issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 16‐31‐042‐00;
Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 16‐31‐043‐00 to the short‐listed proposers; and
Return to the Commission with a recommendation to award a contract based on best‐
value selection criteria.
This staff report relates to the toll services procurement. A future staff report relating to the
design‐build procurement is anticipated to be presented to the Commission in spring 2017.
24
Agenda Item 7
DISCUSSION:
Toll Services Provider Procurement
Selection Process
Toll services for the project were procured using the competitively negotiated procurement
method to obtain the best‐value for the Commission. The competitively negotiated procurement
method considers and evaluates the proposal price and its qualitative technical merits. Staff
determined the competitively negotiated procurement method was most advantageous for this
procurement as it allows the Commission to obtain the best value by using any one or a
combination of selection approaches wherein the relative importance of cost or price may vary
with other non‐cost or price factors.
The best‐value TSP was selected using a two‐step procurement process, as allowed by federal
regulations, PUC Section 130238, and the Commission’s general authority under Chapter 5 of the
procurement manual. The first step consisted of shortlisting the proposers and determination of
a competitive range based on a RFQ. The second step consisted of the receipt and evaluation of
price and technical proposals in response to the RFP. The recommended award is based upon a
best‐value determination using criteria established in the RFP.
Request for Qualifications
Subsequent to Commission approval to use the Commission’s contract authority under the
Specialized Equipment Law (PUC Section 130238) and Chapter 5 of the procurement manual,
staff issued RFQ No. 16‐31‐042‐00 for toll services. On January 20, 2016, the Commission
received eight statements of qualifications (SOQs) in response to the RFQ. A selection team of
staff and project management personnel reviewed the SOQs and performed a comprehensive
evaluation. On February 12, 2016, the Commission announced the prequalification of the
following four TSPs:
• Cofiroute USA
• Electronic Transaction Consultants Corporation (ETCC)
• Schneider Electric Mobility NA, Inc. (Schneider)
• TransCore LP
Shortly after the short‐listed proposers were announced, ETCC informed the Commission it made
an internal business decision and would not continue to participate in the procurement process.
Additionally, Schneider was acquired by Kapsch, who assumed Schneider’s position as a short‐
listed proposer. The shortlisted proposers were revised to include three teams:
Cofiroute USA
Kapsch
TransCore LP
25
Agenda Item 7
Request for Proposals
The three shortlisted proposers were issued a RFP and each submitted price and technical
proposals. The proposals were evaluated and scored on two factors: 1) proposal price; and 2)
technical concepts and approach. The weighting of both factors was determined by staff and
listed in the RFP. The factors were then combined using the predetermined weighting to derive
the highest score and the best‐value proposer.
The selection process commenced once the Commission received the proposals from the three
shortlisted proposers on October 18, 2016. Attachment 1 generally illustrates the proposal
evaluation and selection organization structure used including the price and technical
subcommittees, advisory groups, pass/fail and proposal responsiveness subcommittees. The
steps leading up to selection of the best‐value proposer and this recommendation for award of
a toll services agreement were as follows:
• The proposals were received from the short‐listed proposers and were logged in and
stored in a secure location;
• The proposals were then separated into two components – price proposals and technical
proposals – and provided to the Price Proposal Evaluation Committee (PPEC) and
Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee (TPEC), respectively, for evaluation. The TPEC
and PPEC were made up of staff with the appropriate experience who made independent
and confidential evaluations. The two evaluation committees were assisted by financial,
legal, and project management professionals;
• The two evaluation committees then performed a pass/fail and responsiveness review of
their respective proposals to ensure the proposers satisfied the specified pass/fail and
responsiveness requirements of the RFP, including organization, format, and inclusion of
forms;
• Concurrent with the responsiveness review, each proposal was also evaluated against the
pass/fail criteria identified in the RFP including business organization, proposal security,
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise certification, and adherence to the maximum time for
schedule completion;
• The two evaluation committees submitted requests for clarification related to the
responsiveness and pass/fail review to each of the proposers;
• The two evaluation committees reviewed all responses to the clarification requests and
concluded that all three proposals were responsive to the RFP requirements and met the
pass/fail criteria. In each case, each proposer had some informalities and irregularities,
which the evaluation committees determined were minor or immaterial and could be
waived;
• The TPEC members received input and recommendations from a technical advisory group
made up of project management personnel concerning the technical proposals;
• After having individually reviewed the technical proposal and the input and
recommendations from the technical advisory group, the TPEC met to form consensus
and to score the technical proposals based on the predetermined criteria and weighting
of the technical concepts and approach;
26
Agenda Item 7
• The PPEC completed its scoring based on the predetermined weighting of the proposal
price;
• After the completion of their respective evaluation responsibilities and scoring, the PPEC
and TPEC met to combine the proposal score, based on the predetermined weighting of
the technical proposal score and price score;
• The PPEC and TPEC chairs presented their recommended scoring and the supporting
rationale to the Deputy Executive Director and the Deputy Executive Director accepted
the recommendations;
• The Deputy Executive Director, with the assistance of the PPEC and TPEC chairs,
presented the recommendation and the supporting rationale to the Executive Director.
The Executive Director accepted the recommendations of the PPEC and TPEC, which
marked the completion evaluation process; and
• The proposer with the highest score was selected for limited negotiations on
November 21, 2016, and all shortlisted teams were notified of the results.
Apparent Best Value (ABV) Determination
The best‐value determination was based on a 100 point scale. The price score represented up to
35 points of the total score, and the technical score represented up to 65 points of the total score.
The determination of ABV was based on the highest total proposal score (TPS) computed based
on the following formula:
Total Proposal Score (max. 100) = Price Score (max. 35) +Technical Score (max. 65)
1. The Price Score
Price Score was based on the following formula:
Lowest Proposal Price submitted by any Proposer / Proposal Price of the Proposal being
evaluated x 35 = Price Score
a. Proposal Price
The proposers’ respective Proposal prices values are set forth as follows:
Proposer Contract Price
Cofiroute USA $63,709,612
Kapsch $58,610,425
TransCore, LP $64,838,863
b. Calculation of Price Score
The proposers’ Price Scores were calculated using the formula set forth in the RFP
and noted above. This calculation resulted in the following Price Scores.
27
Agenda Item 7
Proposer Price Score
Cofiroute 32.199
Kapsch TrafficCom Transportation NA Inc. 35.000
TransCore, LP 31.638
2. The Technical Score
Technical Score (maximum of 65 points) was calculated using the following formula:
Technical Proposal Score = TPEC evaluation score (maximum 100 points available) x .65
The evaluation factors for the Technical Proposal were as follows:
Project Management and Administration (maximum 15 points);
Design and Development Work (maximum 30 points);
Toll Collection Systems and Operations (maximum 40 points); and
Maintenance, Reporting and Other (maximum 15 points).
a. Technical Proposal Evaluation Score
The resulting TPEC evaluation scores are set forth below:
Proposer Technical Proposal
Evaluation Score
Cofiroute USA 56.5
Kapsch TrafficCom Transportation NA Inc. 83.1
TransCore, LP 85.5
b. Calculation of Technical Score
The proposers’ Technical Scores were calculated using the formula set forth in the
RFP and noted above. That calculation resulted in the following Technical Scores:
Proposer Technical Score
Cofiroute USA 36.725
Kapsch TrafficCom Transportation NA Inc. 54.015
TransCore, LP 55.575
The Price Scores and Technical Scores were combined and resulted in the
following Total Proposal Scores:
28
Agenda Item 7
Proposer Price
Score
(35
points
max.)
Technical
Score
(65 points
max.)
Total
Proposal
Score
(100 points
max.)
Cofiroute USA 32.199 36.725 68.924
Kapsch TrafficCom Transportation NA Inc. 35.000 54.015 89.015
TransCore, LP 31.638 55.575 87.213
Minor Additional Project Scope Items and Contingency
During the course of the TSP negotiation, staff identified the need for a minor scope change
related to the monitoring of the video stream from the on‐road closed circuit television (CCTV)
system. The scope change allows for automated monitoring, detection and reporting of the CCTV
data collected from the on‐road cameras. Staff worked with Kapsch to identify the additional
scope of work and the associated price. The additional scope has been included in the
agreement.
In order to arrive at a proposed contingency amount for this agreement, staff evaluated various
risk elements and experience in the delivery of the 91 Express Lanes project. This is the first time
the Commission competitively bid a contract that included the design and development and
operations and maintenance for a toll project. In preparing the scope of work related to this
contract, staff made several assumptions related to traffic and revenue, operating rules, state
and federal policy, advances in technology and interaction with other toll facilities (existing and
new). While staff believes it has a firm understanding of these items, they do introduce a level
of risk related to potential changes in the scope of work and contract costs. Additionally, the
eight‐year term of this contract introduces risks related to the level of work required should the
actual volumes of traffic exceed those set forth in the traffic and revenue report and to likely
improvements in technology or policy the Commission may wish to enact. Staff evaluated each
identified potential risk and calculated a potential impact to the contract costs. Staff also
considered potential offsetting cost savings and improvements in revenue collection when
arriving at a proposed contingency amount of 10 percent or $5,887,889. The contract
authorization with a 10 percent contingency is less than the engineer’s estimate for the project
and the amount included in the project’s plan of finance.
Original Contract Price $58,610,425
Additional Scope Items 268,467
Adjusted Contract Price 58,878,892
Contingency 5,887,889
Total Contract Authorization $64,766,781
Passthrough Costs
In order to obtain the best fixed price from the proposers, staff identified various costs as pass‐
through items. The contract identified several items, which the contractor will administer on
29
Agenda Item 7
behalf of the Commission and request reimbursement from the Commission. Such items include
credit card processing fees, postage costs, bank fees, and customer material print costs. The
amount of costs associated with the eligible passthrough costs will vary with the number of
customers and revenue processed. Staff removed the risk for this estimate from the proposer in
an attempt to obtain the best value proposal for the fixed price operations and maintenance
periods. As such, staff estimates the cost for such passthrough items to be approximately
$5 million for the duration of the five‐year operations and maintenance period and is seeking
authorization to reimburse Kapsch for such costs.
Passthrough items will be paid through the Commission’s issuance of a purchase order to Kapsch
and will only be used for the aforementioned items on an as‐needed basis. Staff oversight of the
contract will maximize the effectiveness of the contractor and minimize costs to the Commission.
Schedule
The following table represents past and planned procurement milestones:
Milestone Activity Date
Issue final RFP to short‐listed proposers June 13, 2016
Final RFP addendum October 6, 2016
Proposals due October 18, 2016
Proposal evaluation and selection October 18, 2016 –
November 21, 2016
Limited negotiation, agreement conformance, and staff
recommendation
November 22, 2016 –
January 9, 2017
Caltrans and FHWA concurrence of agreement award January 20, 2017 (est.)
Proposed Commission approval of agreement award January 26, 2017
Execute agreement and Notice to Proceed No.1 February 1, 2017 (est.)
Financial close for I‐15 Express Lanes project (sale of bonds) Summer 2017(est.)
Notice to Proceed No. 2 for full design and construction Summer 2017 (est.)
Agreement Award and Notice to Proceed
The agreement was structured with the ability for the Commission to authorize the TSP to
proceed with limited work and provide payment based upon achieving certain milestones. Notice
to Proceed No. 1 is planned for issuance immediately following execution of the agreement in
the amount of $1,065,000 allowing the TSP to advance work before financial close in a number
of key areas including:
Baseline project schedule, monthly progress schedule, four‐week look‐ahead schedule;
Project Management Plan;
Document Control Work Plan;
Health and Safety Plan;
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Performance Plan;
30
Agenda Item 7
Quality Management Plans;
Document Control System; and
Toll System Infrastructure Design Document.
Upon successfully reaching financial close for the project, which is currently planned for summer
2017, the Commission is positioned to issue Notice to Proceed No. 2 for the remainder of the
agreement provided the TSP has met all of its obligations required for issuance under the
agreement.
Recommendations
Staff requests Commission approval of the toll services agreement between the Commission and
Kapsch for a total amount not to exceed of $64,766,781, which includes a contingency amount
of $5,887,889. Further, authorization is requested for the Chair or Executive Director to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission; the Executive Director or designee to approve the
use of the contingency amount as may be required by the project; staff to issue Notice to Proceed
No. 1 in the amount of $1,065,000 after agreement execution and Notice to Proceed No. 2 for
the remainder of the toll services after financial close including the successful sale of bonds and
funding of the USDOT TIFIA loan. Further authorization is requested for payment of pass‐through
costs up to a total amount of $5 million.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year:FY 2016/17
FY 2017/18+ Amount: $1,065,000
$68,701,781
Source of Funds: Bond and TIFIA Loan Proceeds and Toll
Revenues Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003027 81301 00000 0000 262 31 81301
003027 73002 00000 0000 262 31 73002
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 01/17/2017
Attachments:
1)Proposal Evaluation and Selection Organizational Structure
2)Toll Services Contract – Terms, Conditions, and Exhibits
31
(Enclosed on CD)
Riverside County Transportation Commission I-15 EL Project - TSP Proposal Evaluation Organization TSP PROPOSAL EVALUATION ORGANIZATION RCTC Commission PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE (PPEC) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE (TPEC) RCTC Executive Director RCTC General Counsel RCTC Deputy Executive Director RCTC Procurement Price Pass/Fail & Responsiveness Advisory Subcommittee Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Technical Facilitators Legal/Administrative SubcommitteePrice Facilitators Technical Pass/Fail & Responsiveness Advisory Subcommittee ATTACHMENT 132
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 26, 2017
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Resolution Considering State Route 79 Realignment Project Environmental
Impact Report and Approving the State Route 79 Realignment Project as a
Responsible Agency
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1)Adopt Resolution No. 17‐002, “Resolution Considering the Final Environmental Impact
Report (SCH # 2004091040) Adopting Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the State Route 79 Realignment
Project”;
2)Approve the State Route 79 Realignment project (project) to move into the right of
way (ROW) acquisition phase for environmental mitigation properties;
3)Approve Agreement No. 02‐31‐043‐10, Amendment No. 10 to Agreement
No. 02‐31‐043‐00, with CH2M to perform post environmental impact report
(EIR)/environmental impact statement (EIS) closeout tasks including biological
resource mitigation in the amount of $358,355, plus a contingency of $35,835, for a
total of $394,190, for a total amount not to exceed $32,136,356; and
4)Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The SR‐79 Realignment project is proposed to realign State Route 79 between Domenigoni
Parkway and Gilman Springs Road. Currently, the highway follows a circuitous route through the
downtown areas of the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. The project would realign the highway
to provide a safer and more direct north‐south route through the San Jacinto Valley. The project
will provide a transportation facility that will effectively and efficiently accommodate regional
north‐south movement of people and goods between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs
Road. The project will:
33
Agenda Item 8
Improve traffic flow for local and regional north‐south traffic in the San Jacinto Valley;
Improve operational efficiency and enhance safety conditions by maintaining route
continuity and upgrade the facility;
Allow regional traffic, including truck traffic, to bypass local roads; and
Reduce the diversion of traffic from state routes onto local roads.
The project is proposed as a divided limited access expressway with four travel lanes (two lanes
in each direction) on a new alignment. The project stretches from 1.26 miles south of
Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road, a distance of approximately 12.6 miles. Also
included in the scope is the construction of seven new interchanges to connect to existing local
streets. The total estimated cost for project engineering, ROW, and construction phases is
$1.52 billion.
Environmental Process and Commission’s Role
The proposed project is a joint project by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and is subject to state and federal
environmental review requirements. Therefore, project documentation has been prepared in
compliance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Caltrans is the lead agency under NEPA and CEQA. FHWA’s
responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in
accordance with applicable federal laws for this project is being, or has been carried‐out by
Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 United States Code section 327.
Public review of the draft EIR/EIS prepared for the project began on February 7, 2013 and ended
on March 25, 2013. The partially recirculated draft EIR/supplemental draft EIS (SDEIS) was
circulated for public review between August 24, 2015, and October 8, 2015. During the public
comment period, a traditional cultural property (TCP) was identified within the project limits. To
minimize the impacts to the TCP, the alignment was shifted westerly around the Hemet Hills to
lessen impacts to Section 4(f) and cultural properties. Following receipt of comments from the
public and reviewing agencies, a final EIR/EIS was prepared. The final EIR/EIS included responses
to comments received on the draft EIR/EIS and partially recirculated draft EIR/SDEIS, and
identified the preferred project alternative (Alternative 1Br). A final EIR/EIS was published in the
Federal Register for review pursuant to NEPA on November 4, 2016, with the comment period
ending on December 5, 2016.
Ultimately, Caltrans approved the project in its role as CEQA lead agency on December 8, 2016,
and filed and posted a Notice of Determination in compliance with CEQA on December 9, 2016.
The 30‐day statute of limitations for legal challenges under CEQA to Caltrans’ decision expired on
January 9, 2017, and no litigation was filed. Thereafter, Caltrans – in coordination with the FHWA
–approved the project under NEPA, and a record of decision for the approval was signed on
December 16, 2016.
34
Agenda Item 8
In contrast to Caltrans and FHWA’s roles under NEPA and CEQA, the Commission’s role is limited
to that of a responsible agency under CEQA only. CEQA provides that a responsible agency’s
obligations are narrower and more limited than those of the lead agency. For example, a
responsible agency needs to “consider”, but need not “certify”, an EIR prepared for a project.
However, in reviewing the final EIR/EIS, the Commission must independently reach its own
conclusion on whether and how to issue any project approvals. Additionally, the Commission
must make its own findings for each of the project’s potentially significant effects.
Staff and the Commission’s consultant team reviewed all comments submitted on the EIR/EIS.
Ultimately, all issues identified in comment letters have been thoroughly analyzed in the EIR/EIS.
Further, Caltrans adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that imposes
mitigation measures to reduce many environmental impacts to below a level of significance.
Nonetheless, and even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, some
impacts will remain potentially significant and unavoidable. Those include:
Aesthetics: scenic vistas; scenic highways; visual character, and quality;
Air quality: air quality standards;
Biological resources: sensitive or special statute species; wetlands; wildlife movement
and corridors and native wildlife nursery sites;
Cultural resources: historical, archeological (including tribal cultural resources), and
paleontological resources and geologic features; substantial adverse change in
significance of historical resource;
Noise and vibration: noise standards; permanent noise increase; temporary noise
increase;
Hazards and hazardous materials: hazardous materials near schools; and
Cumulative impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, and cultural resources.
Accordingly, the resolution proposed for adoption makes written CEQA findings, agrees with and
adopts the MMRP previously adopted by Caltrans, and finds the project’s benefits outweigh the
project’s potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts through a statement of
overriding considerations. The resolution would also confirm the Commission’s approval of the
project in the Commission’s limited role as a responsible agency, and allow Commission staff to
move forward with project funding and planning activities, and coordination with Caltrans.
Right of Way
Staff also requests authorization to begin ROW acquisitions, but only for those properties
required for environmental mitigation. The properties required for the project alignment will not
be acquired until funding is identified. The estimated cost for environmental mitigation lands is
$6 million; while the overall project ROW cost is estimated to be $219 million.
35
Agenda Item 8
Project Funding
Funding for the project approval/environmental document (PA/ED) phase of the project,
including preparation of the draft EIR/EIS, was provided by the Federal Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA‐21), Measure A, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees.
Additionally, at such time that new federal, state, and local funds can be identified for this
project, they are expected to be used to continue the project beyond the PA/ED phase. This
project was identified in the voter‐approved Riverside County Transportation Expenditure Plan
as part of Measure A.
Contract Amendments
The current total CH2M contract authorization for the environmental and preliminary
engineering phase of the project is $31,742,166. Staff needs to finalize EIR/EIS closeout tasks
such as biological resource and cultural resource mitigation, as well as engineering support. The
biological resource mitigation will include a final habitat mitigation monitoring plan (HMMP)
and an update to the Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP)
analysis. Both the HMMP and the DBESP shall be submitted to the Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation Authority and wildlife agencies prior to the acquisition of any mitigation
property. In addition, CH2M will need to work closely with staff on requests for information, as
well as closely coordinating with ROW staff on acquisition of properties required for
environmental mitigation.
CH2M submitted a cost estimate of $358,355 related to the additional scope of work, which
staff determined to be fair and reasonable. Staff recommends Commission approval of
Amendment No. 10 with CH2M for an additional amount of $358,355, plus a contingency
amount of $35,835 for a total additional amount $394,190 resulting in an amount not to exceed
of $32,136,356. There are sufficient funds in the FY 2016/17 budget for the additional work;
and a budget adjustment is not required.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2016/17
FY 2017/18+ Amount: $176,000
$218,190
Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Highway Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003003 81101 210 72 81101
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 01/17/2017
36
Agenda Item 8
Attachments:
1)Resolution No. 17‐002
2)SR‐79 Realignment Project Final EIR/EIS (Enclosed on CD)
Also Available at http://sr79project.info/library‐links
3)Draft Agreement No. 02‐31‐043‐10
37
1
RESOLUTION NO. 17‐002
RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONSIDERING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2004091040), ADOPTING RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND APPROVING THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT
PROJECT FROM DOMENIGONI PARKWAY TO GILMAN SPRINGS ROAD AS A RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
WHEREAS, the State Route 79 Realignment project (SR‐79 Realignment project or the
Project) will realign an approximately 18‐mile portion of State Route 79 in order to provide a
safer and more direct north‐south route through the San Jacinto Valley in the county of Riverside;
and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency for
the SR‐79 Realignment project under both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21002.1(d) of the Public Resources Code, and section
15381 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is a responsible agency for the funding and
implementation of the SR‐79 Realignment project; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans solicited comments, including details about the scope and content of
the environmental information as well as potential feasible mitigation measures from
responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public in a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the
Project, which was filed on September 10, 2004 and circulated for a period of 30 days pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082(a) and 15375; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans filed a Supplemental NOP to provide an extended opportunity for
public comment on the Project on March 4, 2005, which was circulated for a period of 30 days
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082(a) and 15375; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines
sections 15082(c) and 15083, Caltrans conducted public scoping to solicit public comments for
the SR‐79 Realignment project; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the Public Resources Code, Caltrans prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) to analyze the
potential environmental effects of the SR‐79 Realignment project; and
WHEREAS, public review of the draft EIR/EIS began on February 7, 2013, and ended on
March 25, 2013; and
ATTACHMENT 1
38
2
WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA, Caltrans prepared a Partially Recirculated Draft
EIR/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) to analyze Project refinements
to reduce environmental effects of and improve the SR‐79 Realignment project; and
WHEREAS, public review of the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/SDEIS began on August 24,
2015, and ended on October 8, 2015; and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the SR‐79
Realignment project were fully analyzed in the draft EIR/EIS and Partially Recirculated Draft
EIR/SDEIS; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15088 and 15089, Caltrans
prepared the final EIR/EIS, which includes written response to comments received on the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the final EIR/EIS consists of the final EIR/EIS, the Draft EIR/EIS, and the Partially
Recirculated Draft EIR/SDEIS; and
WHEREAS, in its role as CEQA lead agency, Caltrans certified the final EIR/EIS and
approved the SR‐79 Realignment project on December 8, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans filed and had posted a Notice of Determination (NOD) on
December 9, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the scope of RCTC’s approval authority as a CEQA responsible agency is more
limited than that of Caltrans as the lead agency; and
WHEREAS, RCTC’s approval actions specifically include adopting this Resolution, adopting
responsible agency findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program, adopting a statement of overriding considerations, and approving the SR‐79
Realignment project; and
WHEREAS, all requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines
have been satisfied in the final EIR/EIS, which is sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially
significant effects of the Project, as well as feasible mitigation measures and a range of potentially
feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing those effects, have been adequately
evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the final EIR/EIS that RCTC finds will
either have no impact or are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in
Section II below; and
39
3
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the final EIR/EIS as potentially
significant but which RCTC finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the
implementation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; and other conditions
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are described in Section
III below; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the final EIR/EIS as potentially
significant but which RCTC finds cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite
the imposition of all feasible measures identified in the final EIR/EIS, are described in Section IV
below; and
WHEREAS, RCTC concurs with Caltrans’ determinations, and the EIR/EIS’s analysis, that
the Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts, but that the benefits of the SR‐79
Realignment project outweigh its potential significant effects for the reasons set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations included in Section X, below; and
WHEREAS, the MMRP, which sets forth all feasible avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, RCTC has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and
considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the final EIR/EIS,
and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings, and RCTC has
independently reviewed the record and all of RCTC’s findings and conclusions are based on this
evidence, as well as the written CEQA findings prepared by Caltrans, which are on file with RCTC
and incorporated herein by reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the final EIR/EIS reflects the independent judgment of RCTC and is fully
adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the SR‐79 Realignment project; and
WHEREAS, RCTC has not received any comments or additional information that
constituted significant new information requiring recirculation under Public Resources Code
section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 and recirculation of the EIR/EIS is not
required because no new significant impacts and no substantial increases to existing significant
impacts will occur from implementation of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2017, RCTC conducted a duly noticed public meeting on this
Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to speak on the matter were heard, and the SR‐79
Realignment project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
40
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION:
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
As set forth in the final EIR/EIS (page iv), the SR‐79 Realignment project would be located
near the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto in Riverside County, California, beginning just south of
Domenigoni Parkway and continuing north to Gilman Springs Road. It would serve southwestern
Riverside County, including the community of Winchester and the cities of Hemet and San
Jacinto. The Project would be a divided limited‐access expressway with four travel lanes (two
lanes in each direction). Almost all of the realignment would be new construction, in areas where
no highway exists. The Project would begin at kilometer post (KP) R25.4 (post mile [PM] R15.78),
which is 1.26 mi south of Domenigoni Parkway, and end approximately 18 mi north at the
intersection of SR 79 and Gilman Springs Road (KP R54.4 [PM R33.80]).
Along with the No Build Alternative that is required by NEPA and CEQA regulations, the
Project alternatives developed to realign SR 79 are Build Alternatives 1a and 1b (including Design
Option 1b1), Build Alternative 1b with Refinements (1br), Build Alternatives 2a and 2b (including
Design Option 2b1). Build Alternative 1br has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the
SR‐79 Realignment project (page 2‐32 in the final EIR/EIS). Build Alternative 1br is also referred
to as the “Project” and the “SR‐79 Realignment project” in this Resolution. Under Build
Alternative 1br, the realigned highways would be a limited‐access, four‐lane expressway, with
two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median.
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 project[.]” Section
21002 further states that the procedures requiring 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 State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, RCTC may only approve or carry out a
project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects
if RCTC 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:
41
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 alternations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a
public agency other than RCTC, 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 Ass’n 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 Ass’n 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,
42
6
and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 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 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, RCTC has determined based on all of the evidence
presented, including, but not limited to the final EIR/EIS; written and oral testimony given at
meetings and hearings; submission of comments from the public, organizations, and regulatory
agencies; and the responses prepared to the public comments, that all of the Project’s
environmental impacts are less than significant or will be mitigated to a level of less than
significant through the imposition of feasible mitigation as set forth in the attached MMRP,1 with
the exception of the following impacts which will remain potentially significant and unavoidable:
Aesthetics: Scenic Vistas; Scenic Highways; Visual Character and Quality.
Air Quality: Violate Air Quality Standards.
Biological Resources: Sensitive or Special Status Species; Wetlands; Wildlife Movement and
Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites.
Cultural Resources: Historical, Archeological (including tribal cultural resources), and
Paleontological Resources and Geologic Features; Substantial Adverse Change in Significance of
Historical Resource.
Noise and Vibration: Noise Standard; Permanent Noise Increase; Temporary Noise Increase.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous Materials near Schools.
1 The MMRP adopted by Caltrans identifies “avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures” that will collectively operate to prevent and/or reduce potential Project
impacts. RCTC’s CEQA findings follow the labeling terminology used in the final
EIR/EIS. However, to be clear, all of the measures identified in the attached MMRP –
which was previously adopted by Caltrans on December 8, 2016 – are binding,
mandatory requirements of the Project, such that they must be completed as part of
Project implementation.
43
7
SECTION II
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 final EIR/EIS has having either no impact or a less than significant impact
on the environment. RCTC hereby finds that the SR‐79 Realignment project would either have
no impact or a less than significant impact in the following resources areas. Because there are
no potentially significant Project related impacts to these environmental topics, no mitigation
measures are required.
A. Environmental Factor: Aesthetics and Visual Resources
1. Light and Glare: As discussed in Sections 3.1.7 Visual/Aesthetics and 4.2.1.1
Aesthetics (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐236 and 4‐2, respectively), the impacts related to light and glare
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Glare associated with windshields
and reflective construction equipment and materials would be present during Project
construction. However, this impact would be temporary in nature and would be limited to the
local Project area. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐2.)
In the Build Alternatives, traffic light fixtures installed along the elevated freeway would
add increased night lighting to some surrounding neighborhoods. The effects of this new light
would be reduced based on the use of light control appliances on the light fixtures. Glare from
the elevated freeway Alternatives would be minimized by the distance of the viewer from the
vehicles and through the implementation of various screening and the use of light shields on the
new light fixtures. As per Riverside County Ordinance 655, which regulates night light pollution
up to 45 miles from the Palomar Observatory, Project operational lighting will comply with this
ordinance. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐2.)
With the headlights of automobiles traveling at a horizontal line of sight, it is anticipated
that the vehicle light from the Freeway would slightly impact the surrounding land uses. New
light fixtures in the Build Alternatives would be placed at a far enough distance from the
surrounding neighborhoods that they would result in no impacts. Therefore, vehicle headlight
glare would be minimal. In addition, light fixtures will be designed to direct light onto the freeway
facilities and away from adjacent land uses. For these reasons, the impacts related to light and
glare would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐2.)
B. Environmental Factor: Agricultural and Forest Resources
1. Convert Viable Farmland: As discussed in Sections 3.1.3 Farmlands/Timberlands
and 4.2.1.2 Agricultural Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐80 and 4‐2), the direct impacts to prime
farmlands, unique farmlands, farmlands of statewide importance and farmlands of local
44
8
importance would vary modestly among the Build Alternatives (Table 3.1‐15 in the final EIR/EIS).
Direct impacts to prime farmlands would range from about 66 to 86 acres (ac). Direct impacts to
unique farmlands would range from 5 to 54 ac; farmlands of statewide importance, 87 to 148 ac;
and farmlands of local importance, 495 to 542 ac. The Preferred Alternative would have the least
direct impact, at about 505 ac. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐97and 4‐2.)
Potential indirect impacts would be relatively small compared to direct impacts. A large
proportion of the farmlands that would be affected by the Project are croplands. Primarily, the
indirect impact to croplands adjacent to a new highway is loss of access caused by the project.
Modifications to driveways and farm lanes made in cooperation with the landowners would
facilitate access to remaining parcels and would minimize indirect impacts. The same would be
true with most livestock operations, where the impacts to the parcels would be peripheral and
would not affect the use of the remainder of the property. The Preferred Alternative would also
have the least indirect impact, at about 73 ac. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐97 and 4‐3.)
All told, the Preferred Alternative would have the smallest total impact (about 578 ac).
The Project would have a minor effect on prime, unique, and other important farmlands on
parcels that are zoned to remain agricultural (Table 3.1‐13 in the final EIR/EIS). (final EIR/EIS, pp.
3‐97 and 4‐3.)
Given the relatively small amount of farmland that would be affected by the Project, this
potential conversion of farmland to non‐agricultural uses is considered to be a less than
significant impact. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐3.)
2. Existing Zoning: As discussed in Sections 3.1.3 Farmlands/Timberlands and 4.2.1.2
Agricultural Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐80 and 4‐3, respectively), the Project located in the
different jurisdictions of the City of Hemet, the City of San Jacinto, and the County of Riverside.
The Project has been sited to minimize impacts to lands zoned or planned to remain as
agricultural in each jurisdiction. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐3.)
In the City of Hemet jurisdiction, the Build alternatives would impact no zoned farmlands.
According to the City of Hemet General Plan 2030 there are no lands set aside for agriculture in
the Project area. The Project is also included in the Transportation Element of the City of Hemet
General Plan 2030. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐3.)
The City of San Jacinto does not contain zoned farmlands in its current general plan. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐3.)
In the Riverside County jurisdiction, The Preferred Alternative would have the least
impact at approximately 40 ac. The total amount of zoned farmlands in the county is 180,178
ac. Therefore, the amount of zoned farmlands impacted by the Project represents less than 0.01
percent of the total zoned farmland in Riverside County. Additionally, the Project is included in
the Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐101 and 4‐3.)
45
9
While the County and City general plans and zoning recognize the transition of agricultural
lands to more urbanized uses, they include policies that encourage conservation of productive
farmlands and minimize the impact of adjacent land uses on agricultural operations beyond those
lands specified as agricultural (discussed in final EIR/EIS Section 3.1.3.4). Most of these policies
are implemented at the owner’s discretion. Consistent with these policies, the Project has been
designed to minimize the footprint and minimize impacts to farm buildings. On properties
affected by the Project, access will be maintained or modified so that the remainder of the
property can continue to be used for agriculture. The City of Hemet, City of San Jacinto, and
Riverside County will continue to be involved in reviewing the design of the Project for
opportunities to minimize impacts to farmlands. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐3 and 4‐4.)
Because of the relatively small area of zoned farmlands that would be affected and design
efforts to minimize direct and indirect impacts to all farmlands consistent with local and regional
land use policies, the impact to zoned agricultural land is less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐
4.)
3. Williamson Act Lands: As discussed in Sections 3.1.3 Farmlands/Timberlands and
4.2.1.2 Agricultural Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐80 and 4‐4, respectively), the Preferred
Alternative would affect no Williamson Act lands, and therefore would require no avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation measures. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐103.)
The Draft EIR/EIS reported several parcels along Roadway Segment M (Build Alternatives
1b, 2b, and the Preferred Alternative) that were non‐renewal status (meaning that the
Williamson Act contract was in the process of being terminated). As discussed in Section 3.1.3.2
of the final EIR/EIS, those non‐renewals expired in 2015. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative
would affect no Williamson Act lands. All of the Williamson Act parcels within the Agricultural
Study Area (ASA) are zoned by the City of San Jacinto for nonagricultural purposes. Farmland
parcels zoned for nonagricultural uses will be converted to a nonagricultural use in the future
regardless of the impacts of the Project (Figure 3.1‐9 of the final EIR/EIS). It is not known when
these lands will be converted from farmlands to their zoned use. These are private properties,
and the timing in which these lands will be developed is at the discretion of each landowner.
(final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐99 and 4‐4.)
Additionally, because the Project would be a new alignment, it must comply with the
requirements of California Government Code (CGC) Section 51292, which states:
[N]o public agency or person shall locate a public improvement within an agricultural
preserve unless the following findings are made:
(a) The location is not based primarily on a consideration of the lower cost of
acquiring land in an agricultural preserve.
46
10
(b) If the land is agricultural land covered under a contract pursuant to this chapter
for any public improvement, that there is no other land within or outside the
preserve on which it is reasonably feasible to locate the public improvement.
Preferred Alternative 1br would impact no Williamson Act lands (see Table 3.1‐17 of the
final EIR/EIS). (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐100 and 4‐4.) The impact to Williamson Act lands would
therefore be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed. However, measure AG‐3 would
be implemented to ensure that the Project adheres to all applicable government codes regarding
acquisition of Williamson Act lands. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐104 and 4‐5.)
4. Forest Land and Timberlands: As discussed in Section 3.1.3
Farmlands/Timberlands and Appendix A CEQA Environmental Checklist (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐80),
the Project is not located within zoned forest land or timberland and therefore would not conflict
with existing zoning for, or cause of forest land, timberlands or timberland zoned Timberland
Productions. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion to non‐forest
land. Therefore, the would be no Project impact. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐2.)
5. Convert Farmland: As discussed in Sections 3.1.3 Farmlands/Timberlands and
4.2.1.2 Agricultural Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐80 and 4‐5, respectively), the Project would
realign and widen the existing SR 79 from two to four lanes, which would increase capacity and
facilitate planned development. Additionally, some existing farmlands would be bisected by the
Project, which could impact the viability of the individual farm and indirectly cause conversion of
these farmlands to nonagricultural use. However, as a general rule, the agricultural use of
remaining lands will be maintained by providing access as part of the Project. Therefore, the
Project impact is considered to be less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐5.)
C. Environmental Factor: Air Quality
1. Applicable Air Quality Plan: As discussed in Section 3.2.6 Air Quality and Appendix
A CEQA Environmental Checklist (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐408), for a project to be found in
conformance with the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, the project must come
from an approved transportation plan and program such as the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The CAA Amendments of
1990 require that transportation plans, programs, and projects that are funded by or approved
under Title 23 of the United States Code (USC) (the Federal Transit Act) conform to state or
federal air quality plans. The Project is included in the list of baseline projects in the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2015 FTIP (through Amendment 15‐01); therefore,
the Project meets the conformity requirements for the regional analysis. Inclusion of the Project
in a conforming FTIP demonstrates that the Project would not cause a significant regional ozone
(O3), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic
diameter (PM10), or particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter
(PM2.5) impact. Because the Project was evaluated in the 2015 FTIP, it is also included in the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted 2012 Air Quality Management
Plan and would be consistent with the applicable air quality management plan. Therefore, The
47
11
Project would not result in impacts related to applicable air quality plan consistency. (final
EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section III(a).)
2. Sensitive Receptors: As discussed in Sections 3.2.6 Air Quality and 4.2.1.3 Air
Quality (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐408 and 4‐5, respectively), construction of the proposed Project may
expose sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project area to short term elevated diesel
particulate matter DMP levels. However, the DPM concentrations would be considered less than
significant because the risk posed by DPM is based on long‐term exposure (70 years). SCAQMD
performs the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES), which is a monitoring and risk
evaluation study conducted periodically in the SCAB. The MATES study included a monitoring
program, an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants (TACs), and a modeling effort
to characterize risk across the Basin. The final MATES III report was published in 2008. In October
2014, SCAQMD released a draft MATES IV report for public review, MATES studies have shown a
trend of health risk decrease of the region over the years. The population‐weighted risk from
the MATES IV study period of 2012 was about 57 percent lower compared to the MATES III period
of 2005 in SCAB. In addition, vehicle emissions are expected to decrease over time in compliance
with United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Air Resources Board
(ARB) regulations for cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. For these reasons, pollutant
concentrations would be expected to be lower in the future than the existing condition.
Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations
during construction or operation of the proposed Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐5.)
3. Odors: As discussed in Sections 3.2.6 Air Quality and 4.2.1.3 Air Quality (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐408 and 4‐5, respectively), during Project construction, objectionable odors could
occur due to diesel‐powered equipment and road‐building activities, such as paving and
asphalting. Such odors, however, would be short term and limited to the immediate vicinity of
the activity. As much as possible, construction equipment and trucks would be located or
rerouted away from local neighborhoods or sensitive receptor areas. Therefore, odor impacts
during construction would be temporary and less than significant. During Project operation,
odorous emissions from vehicle travel would decrease from existing conditions because cleaner
engines and cleaner fuels would be used in the future. Therefore, air quality impacts associated
with odors during Project operation would be less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐5.)
D. Environmental Factor: Biological Resources
1. Local Policies Regarding Biological Resources: As discussed in Sections 3.3.1
Natural Communities and 4.2.1.4 Biological Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐493 and 4‐5,
respectively), two local tree preservation policies are in effect in the Project study area. The first
policy is discussed in final EIR/EIS Section 3.3.1, Natural Communities, and refers to the Riverside
County Oak Tree Ordinance that protects native oak trees with diameters greater than 2 inches
at breast height. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐494 and 4‐5.)
The second policy is from the Biological Resources component of the City of Hemet
General Plan, which contains onsite construction guidelines that specify “mature trees of 6 inches
48
12
diameter or greater shall be protected from indiscriminate cutting or removal.” (final EIR/EIS, p.
4‐5.)
These policies do not apply to the Project (a state project) because there were no existing
native oak trees within the project limits; however, RCTC will consider the requirements of the
policies during final design of the Project should one exist. Therefore, the Project impact would
be less than significant.(final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐494 and 4‐5.)
2. Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan: As
discussed in Sections 3.3.1 Natural Communities and 4.2.1.4 Biological Resources (final EIR/EIS,
pp. 3‐493 and 4‐5, respectively), the Project study area is within the boundaries of the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Stephens’
Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). A detailed discussion of the Project’s
consistency with these plans is provided in final EIR/EIS Section 3.3 Biological Environment.
The Project is located in southwestern Riverside County and is a covered activity, as outlined in
MSHCP. The MSHCP contains policies on the preservation of natural communities and wildlife
movement corridors within the study area (see Figure 3.3‐1 in the final EIR/EIS, p. ). The MSHCP
is a comprehensive, multijurisdictional HCP focusing on the conservation of species and their
associated habitats in western Riverside County. It is one of several large, multijurisdictional
habitat planning efforts in Southern California with the overall goal of maintaining biological and
ecological diversity within a region undergoing rapid urban development. The MSHCP will 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 California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) and Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). An MSHCP Consistency and
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) for the Preferred
Alternative was approved by RCA on September 30, 2015, and by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) on November 23, 2015. The DBESP can be found in Appendix L. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 3‐494.)
The Southwestern Riverside County Multi‐Species Reserve (SWRCMSR) implements the SKR HCP.
The SWRCMSR is one of the reserves established under the SKR HCP. The purpose of the
SWRCMSR is to protect biological habitat and its associated species. However, the SWRCMSR is
not itself a wildlife refuge, nor is it part of a wildlife refuge. The Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Agency (RCHCA) sits on the Reserve Management Committee (RMC) along with the
Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District, USFWS, CDFW, and Metropolitan Water
District. The recreational facility inside the Reserve that is near the Project includes the North
Hills Trail. This facility is operational. Coordination with the RCHCA confirmed that the North
Hills Trail is outside the Project study area and that the Project will not result in any impacts
(permanent or temporary) to recreational resources in the SWRCMSR. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐495.)
Because the Project would be consistent with the criteria in these HCPs, the impact would
be less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐5.)
49
13
E. Environmental Factor: Cultural Resources
1. Historical Resources: As discussed in Sections 3.1.8 Cultural Resources and 4.2.1.5
Cultural Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐278 and 4‐6, respectively), forty‐five cultural resources,
including tribal cultural resources, were evaluated for the Project for National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) (Section 106) and CEQA purposes. These include a Traditional Cultural
Property (TCP), a Potential Prehistoric Archaeological District (PPAD), 12 built environment
resources, and 31 archaeological resources (21 prehistoric sites, 5 historic sites, and 5 mixed
component sites). (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐6.)
Caltrans determined that the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) (CA RIV‐6726H) and TCP are
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and thus the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR), and three additional cultural resources (CA‐RIV‐6907/H, CA‐RIV‐
8156/H, and the PPAD). Although not individually eligible for the NRHP/CRHR, 24 prehistoric
components/sites within the APE contribute to the presumed eligibility of the PPAD.
Additionally, the CBJ Dairy (33‐15752) was determined to be a historical resource under CEQA
(but is not eligible for the NRHP). As a result, the Project is known to contain six historical
resources for the purposes of CEQA: the CRA, the CBJ Dairy, the TCP, the PPAD, and
archaeological sites CA‐RIV‐6907/H and CA‐RIV‐8156/H). The remaining 39 cultural resources (10
built environment resources and 29 archaeological resources) were determined ineligible for
listing on the NRHP and CRHR and are not discussed further in this section. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐6.)
According to State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b), a project with an effect that may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that
may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance
of an historical resource, also defined in PRC 5020.1(q), means physical demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance
of a historical resource would be materially impaired. The significance of a historical resource is
materially impaired when a project would result in the destruction of a historical resource’s
characteristics when those characteristics justify the historical resource for inclusion in, or
eligibility for, the CRHR, inclusion in a local register (if designated under local ordinance or
resolution), or identification as significant in a local survey that meets California State Office of
Historic Preservation (OHP) standards. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐6 and 4‐7.)
Caltrans has determined that the Project would have a less than significant impact on two
of the historical resources, the CRA and the CBJ Dairy; they are discussed below.
The Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) (P‐33‐15752; CA‐RIV‐6726H)
Portions of the CRA that lie within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this Project were
evaluated in the Historical Resources Evaluation Reports (HRER) and determined to be
contributing elements of the system should that resource ever be found eligible for inclusion in
the NRHP in its entirety (as discussed in final EIR/EIS Section 3.1.8.2) and will be considered a
historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The CRA, owned and operated by the Metropolitan
50
14
Water District, brings water from the Colorado River on the eastern border of California to the
Los Angeles area through a series of canals, covered conduits, tunnels, and siphons. Portions of
the first and second barrels of the Casa Loma Siphon and the Casa Loma Canal are the only
elements of the CRA system that are within the APE. The Casa Loma siphons and canal are
important contributing elements of the historical resource as a whole under Criterion A, as a
driving and enabling force for the economic development of Southern California, and as such,
under Criterion 1 for the CRHR. The CRA is also eligible under Criterion C as a marvel of civil
engineering, where the period of significance is 1923 to 1960; therefore, the resource is also
eligible under Criterion 3 for the CRHR. The CRA has also been previously documented for the
Historic American Engineering Record. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐7.)
The Project will not result in the physical destruction or damage to the CRA, nor will there
be a change of the historical resource’s use or physical features. The four proposed crossings of
the CRA would not have an adverse effect. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐302.) The crossings will be a visual
impact to the historical resource. However, with the exception of the Casa Loma Canal, the CRA
west of the San Jacinto Mountains is entirely underground, and the setting of the underground
segment is not a crucial element in the integrity evaluation of the CRA. The aboveground Casa
Loma Canal contributes to the significance of the CRA under Criterion 1 as a necessary part of the
aqueduct, in that it allows the aqueduct to function at its full capacity. As such, its setting does
not contribute to the significance of the resource. Therefore, the undertaking would not
introduce visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that would diminish the integrity of the
historical resources’ setting. The Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the
extent that the resource’s historical value is materially impaired or lost; the Project will have a
less than significant impact on the historical resource. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐7.)
The CBJ Dairy (P‐33‐15752)
The CBJ Dairy (P‐33‐15752), a late 1950s residence and dairy, appears to meet the OHP
standards and will be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA pursuant to
Section 15064(a)(2)‐(3) of the CEQA guidelines and 14 CCR 4852. The resource is associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the development of the San Jacinto Valley
Dairy industry in the early 1960s, and is therefore eligible under Criterion 1 for the CRHR. The
resource also meets 14 CCR 4852(d)(2) regarding special considerations for historical resources
achieving significance within the past 50 years because the period of significance extends from
1959 to 1965. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐7 and 4‐8.)
The CBJ Dairy is located on three contiguous parcels. Contributing features, those
elements of the resource that contribute to its significance, include the barn, three houses,
elliptical driveway, landscaping, hay shelter, fields, and other ancillary dairy structures
constructed during the period of significance. Most of these structures are located in the west‐
center of the resource. The easternmost portion of the resource would be in the Area of Direct
Impact (ADI). The easternmost portion of the resource is in areas proposed for the construction
of roadway segments, a grade‐separated interchange, and construction culverts/drainages
where the depth of disturbance should not exceed 10 ft. The portion of the resource potentially
51
15
impacted includes predominantly vacant agricultural fields, trench silos, storage stockpile areas,
and a hay shed. Because none of these minor elements contribute to the eligibility of the
historical resource as a whole, the Project will not have a direct impact on the resource that
would constitute a substantial adverse change. The Project would have an impact to the setting
of the resource (i.e., its immediate surroundings) due to incorporation of its eastern edge into
the Project as well as due to the construction of a grade‐separated interchange (27 ft. high).
Because the resource is important for its association with important events and not for its
architecture, such changes to the setting of the resource would not constitute a substantial
impairment of the integrity of the historical resource that would be considered adverse.
Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the historical resource. (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐10 and 4‐8.)
2. Archeological Resources: As discussed in Appendix A‐CEQA Environmental
Checklist, no unique archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, as designed in
State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 were identified within the Project Area of Potential
Effects (APE). Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on archaeological
resources. (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section V(b).)
3. Human Remains: As discussed in Section 3.1.8 Cultural Resources and Appendix A
CEQA Environmental Checklist (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐278), the records search conducted for the
Project, as detailed in final EIR/EIS Section 3.1.8.2, revealed that a prehistoric site with human
remains within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) had been documented in 1995. Site CA‐RIV‐
5786 (an isolated prehistoric burial feature) was considered eligible for NRHP/CRHR inclusion at
the time of discovery. However, this feature was removed entirely during emergency recovery
excavations conducted in 1995 during construction of Domenigoni Parkway. No other human
remains have been documented within the APE. Furthermore, no human remains are anticipated
in the types of archaeological sites that have been documented in the APE. Therefore, the Project
would have no impact on human remains. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐284 and Appendix A, Section V(d).)
If human remains are discovered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that
further disturbances and activities shall cease in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie
remains, and the county coroner contacted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will then notify the most likely descendent (MLD).
At this time, the person who discovered the remains will contact the District 8 Native American
coordinator, so that they may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of
the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 will be followed as applicable. (final EIR/EIS, p.
3‐298 and Appendix A, Section V(d).)
F. Environmental Factor: Geology and Soils
1. Soil Erosion: Soil erosion refers to the process by which soil or earth material is
loosened or dissolved and removed from its original location. Erosion can occur by many
different processes, but along the Project, it is more likely to occur where bare soil is exposed to
52
16
wind or moving water. The Coachella Valley, the Santa Ana River channel, and areas in the vicinity
of the City of Hemet have been identified as zones of high wind erosion susceptibility. Bare soil
along these portions of the Project may be subject to wind erosion. However, the Project will
not subject soils to greater amounts of erosion than that which currently exists; therefore, soil
erosion is not considered a significant impact. (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section VI(b).)
2. Septic Systems: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.6 Geology and Soils (final EIR/EIS, p.
4‐8), the proposed Project would not construct septic tanks, and the use of existing septic tanks
during construction is not anticipated. Waste produced by the Project during construction would
be collected by qualified contractors and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations
and codes. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on alternative
wastewater disposal systems. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐8.)
G. Environmental Factor: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Transport: As discussed in Sections 3.2.5 Hazardous Waste/Materials and 4.2.1.7
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐382 and 4‐8, respectively), potential short‐
term hazards associated with the proposed Project involve the transportation of fuels, lubricating
fluids, solvents, aerially deposited lead removal, potential removal of total petroleum
hydrocarbons from the former Mobil gasoline station, and other potentially hazardous materials
during construction. However, construction would not involve handling significant amounts of
these substances beyond what is typically required for a project of this nature. Additionally, all
storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated by the USEPA, California
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), and county and city fire departments. As such, all chemicals used during construction of
the proposed Project would be used, transported, and stored in compliance with applicable
requirements. Therefore, impacts to the public through transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials would be less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐8)
2. Airport Hazards: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐8), the Project is located within the Hemet‐Ryan Airport Influence Area and,
therefore, is subject to regulations governing issues such as development intensity, density,
height of structures, and noise. SR 79 and the airport already exist, and the proposed Project
would not result in any additional safety hazards for people residing or working in the area. The
design of the Project would ensure that no structures would be in conflict with safety zones in
the Hemet‐Ryan Airport Influence Area. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐8 and 4‐9.)
3. Private Airstrip Hazards: As discussed in Appendix A CEQA Environmental
Checklist, the Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no
impacts would be expected to occur. (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section VIII(f).)
H. Environmental Factor: Hydrology and Water Quality
53
17
1. Deplete or Interfere with Groundwater: As discussed in Sections 3.2.1 Hydrology
and Floodplain and 4.2.1.8 Hydrology and Water Quality (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐314 and 4‐9,
respectively), construction of the proposed Project would not result in a depletion of
groundwater supplies, and the proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge.
Even though the Project proposes to increase impervious surface area, the amount of impervious
surface area compared to the area of the groundwater basin results in a negligible impact to
groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than
significant. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐325, 3‐327, and 4‐9.)
2. Drainage and Runoff: As discussed in Sections 3.2.1 Hydrology and Floodplain,
3.2.2 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, and 4.2.1.8 Hydrology and Water Quality (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐314, 3‐330, and 4‐9, respectively), the proposed Project would not substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Storm water conveyance facilities are
required as part of the Project to ensure proper onsite drainage for the Project and maintain
existing offsite water flows in the Project area. The existing drainage patterns would be
maintained by the storm water conveyance facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project is not
expected to have a significant impact associated with altering the existing drainage pattern of
the area and would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding onsite or offsite. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐9.)
While existing roadside ditches already flood during current conditions, the proposed
Project will be designed to maintain existing drainage patterns and flows. Detention basins and
overflow risers would be designed such that pre‐Project flow conditions would be maintained,
and therefore, the proposed Project would not increase the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐9.)
3. Substantially Degrade Water Quality: As discussed in Sections 3.2.2 Water Quality
and Storm Water Runoff and 4.2.1.8 Hydrology and Water Quality (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐330, and
4‐9, respectively), to prevent any temporary water quality impacts, construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the Construction General Permit Order 2012‐
0006‐DWQ (NPDES No. CAS000002) will be implemented. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐333.) The
contractor will use a combination of BMPs that are acceptable and approved by the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board to minimize impacts associated with runoff and polluted
water during construction. To prevent any permanent water quality impacts, the Project will
incorporate treatment BMPs in compliance with the Caltrans NPDES Permit Order No. 2012‐
0011‐DWQ (NPDES No. CAS000003) and the Santa Ana River Watershed within Riverside County
Order No. R8‐2010‐0033 (NPDES No. CAS618033). The treatment BMPs will reduce any potential
pollutant load associated with storm water runoff during the roadway operation. (final EIR/EIS,
pp. 3‐358 to 3‐359 and 4‐9.)
4. Housing and 100‐Year Flood: As discussed in Appendix A CEQA Environmental
Checklist, no housing development will be associated with the Project. Therefore, no impacts
would occur. (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section VIX(g).)
54
18
5. Structures and 100‐Year Flood: As discussed in Sections 3.2.1 Hydrology and
Floodplain and 4.2.1.8 Hydrology and Water Quality (Final EIR, pp. 3‐314 and 4‐9, respectively),
the proposed Project would include the construction of a new roadway alignment within a 100‐
year floodplain, but the existing flow would be maintained by the proposed drainage conveyance
facilities.
Build Alternative 1br is formed by the combination of Roadway Segments B, C, G, I, K, M, and N.
Roadway Segments C, M, and N would encroach upon all four floodplains. Roadway Segment C
would encroach upon the Salt Creek Channel and Hemet Channel floodplains. For the Salt Creek
Channel floodplain, a bridge is proposed to span the Salt Creek Channel. The bridge would be a
transverse crossing of the 100‐year floodplain, and no longitudinal encroachment would occur
(see Figure 3.2‐6). The water surface elevation (WSE) increase compared to the existing condition
baseline would be 0.33 ft. There would be no effect on the floodplain area because the water
would be contained within the channel. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐321.)
For the Hemet Channel floodplain, Roadway Segment C would split and longitudinally encroach
into the existing floodplain. As shown in Figure 3.2‐11, which outlines the proposed Hemet
Channel floodplain compared to the existing Hemet Channel floodplain, a bridge, which is part of
this Build alternative, is proposed to convey flow from the east side of the roadway segment to
the west side of the segment. Flow that is not conveyed through the bridge would be conveyed
south to the Salt Creek Channel through a trapezoidal channel. The WSE increase compared to
the existing condition baseline would be 0.46 ft, and the floodplain area would decrease by 37.1
ac due to the roadway area no longer being in the floodplain. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐321.)
Roadway Segments M and N would encroach upon both the Sanderson Avenue and San Jacinto
River floodplains. Figures 3.2‐12 and 3.2‐13 outline the proposed Sanderson Avenue and San
Jacinto River floodplains analyzed as part of the Project compared to the existing Sanderson
Avenue and San Jacinto River floodplains. To minimize impacts on the Sanderson Avenue
floodplain, drainage facilities are proposed to convey the 100‐year flow to the San Jacinto River.
Two bridge alternatives have been proposed due to the two different alignments being planned
as part of the MCP project. Both bridge conditions would be able to convey the 100‐year
overbank flows, pending the approval of a final MCP alignment. On the Sanderson Avenue
floodplain, there would be no change in WSE compared to the existing condition baseline, and
the floodplain area would decrease by 72.4 ac due to the roadway no longer being in the
floodplain. If the master plan facilities downstream are constructed, the total decrease in
floodplain area would be 1,647.7 ac. If they are not constructed, the floodplain area would
decrease compared to the existing condition baseline as stated above. On the San Jacinto River
floodplain, the WSE increase compared to the existing condition baseline would be 0.85 ft, and
the floodplain area would decrease by 47.9 ac due to the roadway area no longer being in the
floodplain. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐321.)
The maximum WSE increase compared to the existing condition baseline would be 0.85 ft on the
San Jacinto River floodplain. This is below the threshold set by FEMA guidelines, which limit the
55
19
WSE increase to 1.0 ft. As discussed above, the proposed encroachment into the Salt Creek,
Hemet Channel, Sanderson Avenue, and San Jacinto floodplains associated with the construction
of Build Alternative 1br would be minimized by the selection and design of the required hydraulic
structures. Under these conditions, the encroachment would not introduce significant risks or
adversely impact the floodplain value. Therefore, Build Alternative 1br does not represent a
significant encroachment upon the floodplain. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐321.)
The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area. Storm water conveyance facilities are required as part of the Project to ensure proper
onsite drainage for the Project and maintain existing offsite water flows in the Project area. The
existing drainage patterns would be maintained by the storm water conveyance facilities.
Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to have a significant impact associated with
impeding or redirecting flood flows within a 100‐year flood hazard area. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐321
and 4‐9.)
6. Dam Inundation: As discussed in Appendix A CEQA Environmental Checklist, the
Project does not involve construction near a levee or dam. Therefore, there would be no impacts
associated with risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam. (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section VIX(i).)
7. Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow: As discussed in Appendix A CEQA Environmental
Checklist, based on the location of the Project, it is not likely that it would be inundated by a
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A,
Section VIX(j).)
I. Environmental Factor: Land Use and Planning
1. Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan: As discussed in Sections 3.1 Human
Environment, 3.3 Biological Environment, 4.2.1.9 Land Use and Planning (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐7, 3‐
493, and 4‐10, respectively) as well as previously discussed above in Subsection (D)(2) of these
findings, the proposed Project would be within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP). These plans are described in final EIR/EIS Section 3.1.1.2, and a
discussion of the Project’s consistency with these plans is provided in final EIR/EIS Section 3.3.1.3.
Because the Project would be consistent with the criteria in these HCPs, the impact would be less
than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐10.)
J. Environmental Factor: Mineral Resources
1. Mineral Resource: As discussed in Section 3.2.3
Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography and Appendix A CEQA Environmental Checklist (final EIR/EIS,
p. 3‐362), Riverside County has extensive deposits of clay, limestone, iron, sand, and aggregates.
Currently, most of the mineral resource extraction in western Riverside County takes place in
unincorporated areas of the county. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
56
20
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) designates approximately 19,700 acres of land categorized as
Mineral Resource Zone‐2 (MRZ‐2), which indicates that the zone has significant mineral deposits.
Currently, no areas designated MRZ‐2 are in the Project study area. The MRZ‐2 area nearest to
the Project is located in the unincorporated part of the county about 8 km (5 mi) northwest of
the northern end of the Project study area. The Project is not located within the boundaries of
the Mineral Resource Zones as indicated in the MSHCP. Therefore, no impacts associated with
mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state would occur.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐367 and Appendix A, Section XI(a).)
2. Locally‐Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site: As discussed in Section 3.2.3
Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography and Appendix A CEQA Environmental Checklist (final EIR/EIS,
p. 3‐362), the MRZ‐2 area nearest to the Project is located in the unincorporated part of the
county about 8 km (5 mi) northwest of the northern end of the Project study area. The Project
is not located within the boundaries of the Mineral Resource Zones as indicated in the MSHCP.
Therefore, no impacts associated with mineral resources of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site would occur. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐367 and Appendix A, Section XI(b).)
K. Environmental Factor: Noise and Vibration
1. Groundborne Vibration or Noise: As discussed in Sections 3.2.7 and 4.2.1.10
Noise and Vibration (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐436 and 4‐10, respectively), highway operations are
typically not major sources of groundborne noise or vibration. While vibration generated by
construction equipment has the potential for vibration impacts, the Project’s proposed
construction vibration impacts will occur at a distance beyond what should be expected to affect
existing or proposed land uses. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐10.)
2. Airport Noise: As discussed in Sections 3.2.7 and 4.2.1.10 Noise and Vibration
(final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐436 and 4‐10, respectively), the SR‐79 Realignment project is not located
within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is the Hemet‐Ryan Airport (at the intersection
of Warren Road and Stetson Avenue) approximately 1.3 miles away. The Hemet‐Ryan Airport is
a general use airport owned by the County of Riverside. The project will not result in a noise
problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the vicinity of the
airport. Therefore, no impacts will occur. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐10.)
3. Airstrip Noise: As discussed in Sections 3.2.7 and 4.2.1.10 Noise and Vibration
(final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐436 and 4‐10, respectively), the Project is not located in the vicinity of a
private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐10.)
L. Environmental Factor: Population and Housing
1. Induce Substantial Population Growth: As discussed in Sections 3.1.2 Growth and
4.2.1.11 Growth‐Inducing Impacts (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐60 and 4‐10, respectively), with the
Project, there would be either no, or a negligible, change in the amount of expected growth.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐10.)
57
21
From 1990 to 2010, Hemet’s population grew more than 50 percent, and San Jacinto’s
population grew 130 percent. Forecasts show this rate of growth continuing until at least 2035,
primarily due to the demand for affordable housing. The growth is not confined to the San Jacinto
Valley. Over the next 20 years, Riverside County is forecast to grow at an average annual rate of
3.4 percent compared to the 1.25‐percent average in Southern California. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐10.)
Because of the distribution of forecast growth throughout the county, a series of
unprecedented planning activities were initiated in the late 1990s at a county level to manage
decision making for land use, transportation, and the conservation of biological habitats. The
result was the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) and each of its elements—the Riverside
County General Plan (led by the County of Riverside), the Community and Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) (led by RCTC), and the Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) (led by the County of Riverside). (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐10.)
The “integrated” plan established a collective goal so that implementation of each
component, even at a local scale, would result in a compatible outcome for the county as a whole.
After the approval of each of the plans in 2003, their implementation has progressed and has
supported the subsequent updates to city general plans in a manner consistent with the Riverside
County General Plan. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐64 and 4‐10.)
For each of the general plans, the responsible jurisdiction completed an environmental
impact report that analyzed the potential for growth‐inducing impacts. The environmental
impact report for each jurisdiction concluded that growth was induced because a General Plan is
inherently growth inducing. However, the intent of the general plan was to “…provide a
framework by which public officials will be guided on making decisions relative to
development…” (Riverside County) and “…define the limits of such development and act as a
mechanism to accommodate and control future development…” (San Jacinto). Thus, although
growth was recognized as being induced, it was also intended to be managed. In addition, the
environmental impact report for Riverside County evaluated the potential for growth
inducement from the construction of infrastructure needs. As stated in Section 5.3 of the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the County General Plan (2003), “…providing these
infrastructure needs (such as roads) in response to substantial increases in development that
would occur through build out of the General Plan, would accommodate, but not induce or cause,
the growth projected by the County General Plan.” Based on these conclusions in the
environmental impact reports of the general plans for Riverside County, San Jacinto, and Hemet,
the baseline for the Project (the No Build Alternative) recognizes that growth is occurring in
Riverside County that has been induced by the adoption of the updated general plans, but such
growth is not attributable to the Project. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐10 and 4‐11.)
Although Riverside County determined that meeting infrastructure needs would not induce
growth, the project type, a limited‐access expressway, would focus the most potential for
changes in growth on the areas adjacent to proposed interchanges. Most of these locations are
58
22
protected, developed, or at some stage in the development entitlement process (e.g., Specific
Plan, Application Submitted, Project Approved) that is compatible with their general plan
designation. Because this development is largely set, the Project location has minimal influence
on the development of undeveloped parcels adjacent to the proposed Project interchanges.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐11.)
Therefore, with the Project, there would be either no, or a negligible, change in the amount of
expected growth. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐80 and 4‐11.)
M. Environmental Factor: Recreation
1. Increase Use of Recreational Facilities: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.10
Recreation (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐38) and Appendix A CEQA Environmental Checklist, based on the
nature of the Project, it would not introduce substantial numbers of new residents to the area
that would increase the use of existing parks or recreation facilities. Therefore, there would be
no impact to recreational facilities. (final EIR/EIS, p.4‐38.)
2. Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities: As discussed in Appendix A
CEQA Environmental Checklist, the Project would not require the construction of new parks or
recreational facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
(final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section XV(b).)
N. Environmental Factor: Traffic and Transportation
1. Plan Consistency: As discussed in Sections 3.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and 4.2.1.12 Transportation/Traffic (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐155 and 4‐11, respectively), except on some portions of local roads and the current
SR 79 alignment, existing roadways in the Project study area operate at Level of Service (LOS) C
or better. The highest traffic volumes in the area are on Florida Avenue between Winchester
Road and San Jacinto Street (where SR 79 and SR 74 are collocated). Other roadways with high
daily traffic volume include portions of Sanderson Avenue, State Street, and Domenigoni
Parkway. See final EIR/EIS Section 3.1.6.2 for a discussion of existing conditions on local roads.
(final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐155 and 4‐11.)
Intersections in the Project study area were analyzed under current traffic conditions. Of
the 30 intersections analyzed, 6 intersections have LOS D or worse during either the morning or
afternoon peak hours, or both. The remaining 24 intersections have LOS C or better in both peak
hours. Impacts to traffic load and capacity during construction would be less than significant,
and the Project would result in beneficial improvements. A discussion of traffic volumes and the
results of intersection analyses are provided is provided in Section 3.1.6.2 for the 2040 Build
Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐155and 4‐11.)
In general, the Project will result in positive impacts on traffic. Project implementation
would improve and increase capacity on SR 79 to facilitate regional movement of people and
59
23
goods. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any established measure of effectiveness
for the circulation system and the impact would be considered less than significant. (final EIR/EIS,
pp. 4‐11 and 4‐12.)
2. Exceed Levels of Service: As discussed in Sections 3.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and 4.2.1.12 Transportation/Traffic (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐155 and 4‐11, respectively), impacts to existing LOS during construction would be
less than significant, and implementation of the Project would
result in beneficial improvements to LOS and overall traffic congestion. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐12.)
Build Alternatives Segment LOS
Construction of the Build Alternative would improve 12 of the 17 deficient segments from
unacceptable LOS (D, E, or F) to LOS C or better. The following roadway segments will operate at
LOS D or worse under the 2040 Build Alternative conditions:
• Florida Avenue between Sanderson Avenue and State Street
• Florida Avenue between State Street and San Jacinto Street
• Florida Avenue between San Jacinto Street and Columbia Street
• San Jacinto Street between Menlo Avenue and Esplanade Avenue
• Sanderson Avenue between Ramona Expressway and Gilman Springs Road
In general, the Project will result in positive impacts on traffic. Project implementation
would improve LOS in the Project area. Without implementation of the Project, the Project area
will operate at LOS D or worse with the projected daily volumes under the 2040 predicted
volume. The traffic analysis shows that construction of the Project will improve operations on SR
79 by relieving congestion and improving intersection operations. Therefore, impacts to LOS and
overall congestion from Project implementation would be less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p.
4‐12.)
3. Air Traffic Patterns: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.12 Transportation/Traffic (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐11), the Project would not constitute a new obstruction to navigable air space and
would not create potentially significant air traffic‐related impacts. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐12.)
4. Hazards Due to Design Features: As discussed in Sections 3.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and 4.2.1.12 Transportation/Traffic (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐155 and 4‐11, respectively), design features identified for the Project are not
expected to increase hazards, and all are compatible with current highway standards. The
proposed Project is a limited access highway facility that would not result in incompatible uses.
(final EIR/EIS, p.4‐12.)
During construction, the work area will be delineated with lane closure devices approved by
Department traffic standards or other approved traffic control standards following the governing
agency request, using such guidance as necessary from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
60
24
Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook. As the Project would not increase hazards or
incompatible uses, this impact would be considered less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p.4‐12.)
5. Alternative Transportation: As discussed in Sections 3.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and 4.2.1.12 Transportation/Traffic (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐155 and 4‐11, respectively), the Project would be constructed as a limited access
expressway with a State Route designation. Alternative transportation facilities typical of local
roadways such as bus routes, turnouts, and bicycle racks would not be associated with the
Project. In addition, Project crossings of existing transportation routes that support alternative
transportation would be designed and constructed so as not to conflict with continued operation
of these facilities. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any policy, plan or program
regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facility and so the impacts would be considered
less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐13.)
O. Environmental Factor: Utilities and Service Systems
1. Wastewater: As discussed in Appendix A CEQA Environmental Checklist, based on
the nature of the Project, it would not produce wastewater requiring municipal treatment.
Because wastewater treatment requirements would not be applicable to the Project, no impacts
would occur. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the storm water
treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
including:
• The General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction
Activity (Construction General Permit, 99‐08‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) will be
acquired for most construction activities greater than 0.405 ha (1 ac), that are part of a
Common Plan of Development exceeding 2 ha (5 ac), or have the potential to significantly
impair water quality. On September 19, 2012, the Department's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit was re‐issued (Order No. 2012‐0011‐DWQ)
and became effective on July 1, 2013. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the
State Water Board a minimum of 30 days before the start of construction. The
Department Statewide Storm Water Permit (NPDES No. CAS000003) will not be used for
this project because the Department is not the lead agency for construction.
• Following construction, the Department Statewide Storm Water Permit (NPDES
No. CAS000003) will be used for the operation and maintenance of the Project. (final
EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section XVII(a).)
Within the San Jacinto Watershed in the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8), the Regional Board
adopted an NPDES permit (State Water Board Order No. 01‐34, NPDES No. CAG618005) for the
discharge of storm water runoff from new developments exceeding 2 ha (5 ac). Until recently,
this permit superseded the General Permit (NPDES No. CAS000002). On February 3, 2005, the
RWQCB Santa Ana Region adopted Order No. R8‐2005‐0038 as an amendment to the Basin Plan,
61
25
which eliminates this requirement for dischargers who implement a Water Quality Control Plan
and obtain coverage under the General Permit. (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section XVII(a).)
If discharges result in soil disturbance in an area of 0.405 ha (1 ac) of total land area or
more due to construction activity, clearing, grading, and excavation, the discharges must by law
comply with the provisions of an NPDES Permit and develop and implement an effective Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Soil disturbances of less than 0.405 ha (1 ac) do not
currently require coverage under an NPDES permit and, therefore, do not require the
development of an SWPPP. In such situations, however, the Department requires that a water
pollution control program (WPCP) be developed. The Department may require that an SWPPP
be developed in such situations should the risk to water quality be significant. In all cases for this
project, soil disturbances are expected to exceed 0.405 ha (1 ac), so an SWPPP will be required.
Because compliance with these applicable regulations is required as a condition of permit
approval by the RWQCB, impacts to water quality would be less than significant. (final EIR/EIS,
Appendix A, Section XVII(a).)
2. New or Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facilities: As discussed in Appendix A
CEQA Environmental Checklist, based on the nature of the Project, it would not require the
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing
facilities. Therefore, no impacts to these types of facilities would occur. (final EIR/EIS, Appendix
A, Section XVII(b).)
3. Water Supplies: As discussed in Section 4.2.1.13 Utilities and Service Systems
(final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐13), limited quantities of water are anticipated to be needed for dust control
during construction and for irrigation during operation. Sufficient water supplies are expected
to be available for these activities. Potable water is not required for irrigation or dust control
activities, and several sources of gray water (nonpotable) are available in the Project vicinity, such
as from the Eastern Municipal Water District facilities. The Project would not require a
permanent, municipal water supply and would not require new or expanded water entitlements.
Therefore, impacts to water supplies would be less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐13.)
4. Capacity of Wastewater Facilities: As discussed in Appendix A CEQA
Environmental Checklist, based on the nature of the Project, it would not require the use of
wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, no impacts to these types of facilities would occur.
(final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section XVII(e).)
5. Solid Waste: As discussed in Appendix A CEQA Environmental Checklist, the
Project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section XVII(g).)
P. Environmental Factor: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: As discussed in Section 4.2.5 Climate Change (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐90), climate change refers to long‐term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind
62
26
patterns, and other elements of the earth's climate system. An ever‐increasing body of scientific
research attributes these climatological changes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly
those generated from the production and use of fossil fuels. Efforts devoted to GHG emissions
reduction and climate change research and policy are primarily concerned with the emissions of
GHGs generated by human activity including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), HFC‐23 (fluoroform),
HFC‐134a (s, s, s, 2‐tetrafluoroethane), and HFC‐152a (difluoroethane). (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐90.)
In the U.S., the main source of GHG emissions is electricity generation, followed by
transportation. In California, however, transportation sources (including passenger cars, light
duty trucks, other trucks, buses, and motorcycles make up the largest source (second to
electricity generation) of GHG emitting sources. The dominant GHG emitted is CO2, mostly from
fossil fuel combustion. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐90.)
There are four primary strategies for reducing GHG emissions from transportation
sources: 1) improving the transportation system and operational efficiencies, 2) reducing the
growth of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 3) transitioning to lower GHG emitting fuels, and 4)
improving vehicle technologies. To be most effective all four strategies should be pursued
cooperatively. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐90.)
To the extent that a project relieves congestion by enhancing operations and improving
travel times in high congestion travel corridors GHG emissions, particularly CO2, may be reduced.
One of the purposes of the proposed Project is to improve traffic flow for local and regional traffic
in the San Jacinto Valley. The proposed Project is intended to improve capacity to support
increased local and regional travel demands associated with projected growth in the area. For
the No Build Alternative (Year 2040), 10 roadway segments are expected to operate at LOS F
according to the Supplemental Traffic Report for SR 79 Realignment and Table 3.1‐37 in the final
EIR/EIS. The traffic data for the different Build Alternatives would be similar, so the analysis
evaluates the Build Alternatives collectively. Under the Build Alternatives, in 2040, the
Supplemental Traffic Report for SR 79 Realignment and Table 3.1‐37 indicate SR 79 would be
expected to operate at LOS C or better along the entire alignment, except for the two segments
between Newport Road and Grand Avenue, which are projected to operate at LOS E. Table 3.1‐
40 in the final EIR/EIS indicates that nine of the ten roadway segments operating at LOS F under
the No Build alternative (Year 2040) would experience an improvement in LOS and the
improvement in traffic flow with the Build Alternatives which would be expected to have a
beneficial effect to regional GHG emissions through reductions in GHG emissions due to reduced
vehicle delay and idling associated with improvements under the Build Alternatives. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐95.)
The proposed Project would reduce overall congestion. Additionally, it is expected that
drivers would take more direct routes, thereby reducing overall VMT from the No Build
Alternative. Therefore, although the modeled CO2 emissions in the future years (2020 and 2040)
would be higher than the 2014 emissions due to growth unrelated to the Project, the 2020 and
2040 CO2 emissions for the Build Alternative would be less than the No Build Alternative
63
27
emissions due to the reduced VMT and improved traffic conditions. In 2020, the modeled Build
Alternative emissions would be 29,991 metric tons per year less than the No Build Alternative
emissions; in 2040, the modeled Build Alternative emissions would be 37,526 metric tons per
year less than the No Build Alternative emissions. Based on the quantitative analysis, the Build
Alternative would reduce CO2 emissions compared to the No Build Alternative, and would be
consistent with the RTP/SCS’s regional GHG reduction goals. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐96.) Accordingly,
no potentially significant impacts will occur as a result of GHG emissions.
Further, greenhouse gas emissions for transportation projects can be divided into those
produced during construction and those produced during operations. Construction GHG
emissions include emissions produced as a result of material processing, emissions produced by
onsite construction equipment, and emissions arising from traffic delays due to construction.
These emissions will be produced at different levels throughout the construction phase; their
frequency and occurrence will be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and by
implementing better traffic management during construction phases. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐100.) In
addition, with innovations such as longer pavement lives, improved traffic management plans,
and changes in materials, the GHG emissions produced during construction will be reduced to
some degree by longer intervals between maintenance and rehabilitation events.
Even though no potentially significant GHG impacts will result from the Project, the
following construction minimization measures will be nonetheless be implemented for air quality
to further reduce these already insignificant GHG impacts.
AQ‐1 First‐Stage Smog Alerts. Suspension of all construction equipment operations
during first‐stage smog alerts is required.
AQ‐2 Electricity. To the extent feasible, use electricity from power poles rather than
temporary diesel‐ or gasoline‐powered generators.
AQ‐3 Construction Parking. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic
interference on local streets.
AQ‐4 Construction Truck Routes. To the extent feasible, reroute construction trucks from
congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
AQ‐5 Onsite Construction Traffic Control. Provide temporary traffic controls, such as a
flag man, for onsite construction vehicles during all phases of construction to maintain
smooth traffic flow.
AQ‐6 Construction Vehicle Turn Lanes. Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of
construction vehicles, if no turn lane currently exists, where feasible.
AQ‐8 Signal Boards. All message/signal boards shall be solar powered.
64
28
AQ‐10 Construction Equipment. If practical, lease new, clean equipment meeting the
most stringent of applicable federal or state standards. In general, meet and ideally go
beyond ARB requirements for inuse diesel engines and equipment, particularly for non‐
road construction fleets. Ensure that construction equipment meet or exceed equivalent
emissions performance to that of U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for non‐road engines.
(final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐100 and 4‐101.)
The following measures will also be included in the Project to further reduce the already
insignificant GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from the Project:
GHG reduction measures:
1. The Department and the California Highway Patrol are working with regional agencies
to implement Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to help manage the efficiency of
the existing highway system. ITS commonly consists of electronics, communications, or
information processing used singly or in combination to improve the efficiency or safety
of a surface transportation system.
2. In addition, the Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino
Associated Governments jointly provide ridesharing services, park‐and‐ride facilities, trip
transit trip planning information, and additional information about alternative modes of
travel through their IE511.org and 511 phone service to help manage the growth in
demand for highway capacity within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
3. Landscaping reduces surface warming, and through photosynthesis, decreases CO2.
The Project proposes to provide landscaping where necessary in the corridor to provide
aesthetic treatment, replacement planting, or mitigation planting for the Project.
4. The Project would incorporate the use of energy‐efficient lighting, such as light‐
emitting diode (LED) traffic signals. LED bulbs cost $60 to $70 apiece but last five to six
years, compared to the one‐year average lifespan of incandescent light bulbs previously
used. The LED bulbs themselves consume 10 percent of the electricity of traditional lights,
which will also help reduce the Project’s CO2 emissions.
5. According to Caltrans Standard Specifications, the contractor must comply with all of
the South Coast Air Quality Management District's rules, ordinances, and regulations in
regards to air quality restrictions. In addition, the contractor will restrict idling of
construction vehicles to no longer than 5 consecutive minutes to comply with Title 13,
California Code of Regulations §2449. Compliance with this regulation reduces harmful
emissions and GHG from diesel‐powered construction vehicles.
65
29
6. Implementation of minimization measures for construction equipment described in
Section 3.2.6.4 of the final EIR/EIS, including AQ‐1, AQ‐3, AQ‐4, AQ‐5. AQ‐6, AQ‐8, and
AQ‐10 would reduce the GHG emissions during the construction period of the project.
(final EIR/EIS, p.4‐105.)
Therefore, given reduction strategies described above, GHG impacts would be less than
significant.
2. Conflict with Plan, Policy, or Regulation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
As discussed in Section 4.2.5 Climate Change (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐90), the Project would be
beneficial to regional and local efforts to reduce GHG emissions. It would help to achieve regional
and subregional GHG emission reduction targets by reducing traffic congestion, thus reducing
vehicle exhaust emissions. The Project is listed in the 2012‐ 2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which includes programs, policies, and
measures to address air emissions, including greenhouse gases. Consistent with SB 375
requirements, the ARB issued a per capita GHG reduction target of 8% for 2020 and 13% for 2035
for SCAG’s 2012‐2035 RTP/SCS. SCAG’s 2012‐2035 RTP/SCS will surpass the ARB’s reduction
targets with GHG emission reductions of 9% per capita in 2020 and 16% per capita in 2035.
Measures in the RTP/SCS that help mitigate air emissions, including GHG emissions, are
composed of strategies to reduce congestion, increase access to public transportation, improve
air quality, and enhance coordination between land use and transportation decisions. The City
of Hemet General Plan 2030 identifies improving traffic conditions and reducing vehicle miles
traveled as measures to reduce GHG emissions, in accordance with Senate Bill 375 regional
and/or subregional targets established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The
environmental impact report recently approved for this general plan proposes to create and
implement programs that will aid in improving air quality by reducing motor vehicle trips, such
as those programs recommended by the RTP, RCIP, and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD). GHG emissions are not evaluated or discussed in the current City of San
Jacinto General Plan. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐95 and 4‐96.)
Given that the Project will not conflict with any of these plans, policies, or regulations to
reduce GHG emissions, impacts would be less than significant.
66
30
SECTION III
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
RCTC finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the final EIR/EIS are
potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition
of feasible mitigation measures. The potentially significant impacts and the measures which
would reduce them to a less than significant level are described in the final EIR/EIS and are
summarized in the following sections.
The complete language of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and
other conditions included in Preferred Alternative 1br to address the Project’s environmental
effects are provided in the MMRP in Exhibit A and are summarized briefly when cited in the
following sections.
A. Environmental Factor: Biological Resources
1. Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Community:
As discussed in Sections 3.3.1 Natural Communities and 4.2.2.1 Biological Resources (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐493 and 4‐14, respectively), the Project would result in permanent direct and
indirect impacts to nine sensitive natural community types—alkali grassland, alkali playa,
cottonwood‐willow riparian forest, emergent wetland, mulefat scrub, Riversidian sage scrub,
seasonal wetland, vernal pool, and willow riparian scrub and forest. Sensitive natural plant
communities are limited within the Project Impact Area (PIA). Sensitive natural plant
communities are infrequent in the 100‐ft indirect impact area, but they are present in Additional
Indirect Impact Study Area 1, which includes the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) Upper Salt Creek Reserve and the Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex, as well as
Additional Indirect Impact Study Area 2, a portion of which falls within Cell 3291. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 4‐14.)
For this analysis, all areas that support natural communities inside the PIA were
considered to be permanently lost as a result of building and operating the roadway. Direct
impacts to natural communities, such as permanent loss of habitat, are those impacts that can
be expected from the removal and disturbance of the land that are associated with construction
and operation. Indirect impacts would result from the Project, be reasonably foreseeable, and
could occur later or would be farther away from the Project than direct impacts. For this analysis,
permanent indirect impacts could include alteration of wetland hydrology or the establishment
or encroachment of invasive plants that eventually outcompete native species or degrade habitat
quality. Permanent indirect impacts could occur within the 100‐ft indirect impact area adjacent
to the PIA or within Additional Indirect Impact Study Areas 1 and 2. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐14.)
67
31
The Preferred Alternative (Build Alternative 1br) would have permanent direct impacts to
seven sensitive natural community types and permanent indirect impacts to nine sensitive
natural community types. Permanent direct impacts to the alkali grassland natural community
would total 13.3 ac. Permanent indirect impacts could occur to an additional 3.9 ac of alkali
grassland in the 100‐ft indirect impact area. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐16.)
A total of 0.002 ac of alkali playa, 8.6 ac of seasonal wetland, and 2.0 ac of vernal pool
could be permanently and directly impacted by the Project. Permanent indirect impacts could
occur to an additional 0.2 ac of alkali playa, 4.7 ac of seasonal wetlands, and 0.8 ac of vernal pool
in the 100‐ft indirect impact area. Permanent indirect impacts to 0.2 ac of emergent wetland
vegetation could occur in the 100‐ft indirect impact area east of Sanderson Avenue and north
and south of Scott Street. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐16.)
Riparian habitats are present in the northern part of the Preferred Alternative.
Permanent direct impacts to 1.2 ac of cottonwood willow riparian forest and 2.4 ac of willow
riparian habitat would occur from construction. Another 0.7 ac of cottonwood willow riparian
forest, 0.01 ac of mulefat scrub, and 2.2 ac of willow riparian habitat could be permanently and
indirectly impacted. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐16.)
Large stands of Riversidian sage scrub are present in the hills south of Domenigoni
Parkway and in the West Hemet Hills. Permanent direct impacts to 52.4 ac of Riversidian sage
scrub and permanent indirect impacts to 30.6 ac could occur in these areas. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐
16.)
Build Alternative 1br would directly impact 2.97 ac of spreading navarretia critical habitat
in Subunit 6B, Salt Creek Seasonally Flooded Alkali Plain. Indirect impacts would equal 4.47 ac.
As described in Section 3.3.5.2 of the final EIR/EIS, the spreading navarretia critical habitat
located within the impact area of Build Alternative 1br does contain primary constituent
elements as defined in the Federal Register. However, the portion of critical habitat in Build
Alternative 1br is unoccupied. Based on the absence of spreading navarretia, the functions and
values of this portion of critical habitat is determined to be low; therefore, the Project would not
adversely modify spreading navarretia critical habitat and the impact would be considered less
than significant. Measure BIO‐27, discussed below, which requires the installation of ESA fencing
would further reduce the Project’s impacts. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐16 and 4‐17.)
Finding: The Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures summarized below
would reduce the Project impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community to below a level of significance. These Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the
Project that would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as
identified in the final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Avoidance Measures: Avoidance measure BIO‐27, for special‐status plant species and the
federally listed vernal pool branchiopod, would apply to spreading navarretia critical habitat. A
68
32
contractor‐supplied biological monitor with knowledge of wetland ecology and rare plants will
demark the location of the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fence in the field and on
construction drawings and plans and will supervise the ESA fence installation. The biological
monitor will also inspect the ESA fencing regularly during construction and will coordinate with
the Resident Engineer if fence repairs should be required. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐18.)
Minimization Measures: Implementation of Minimization Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐
10 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community to a less than significant level as follows:
BIO‐1: Landscaping Plans.
BIO‐2: Avoid the Use of Invasive and Non‐Native Plants.
BIO‐3: Barrier Fencing along ROW.
BIO‐4: Slope Construction within ROW.
BIO‐5: Equipment Storage, Fueling, and Staging Areas.
BIO‐6: Training about Sensitive Biological Resources.
BIO‐7: Fire Season Work.
BIO‐8: Dust Minimization.
BIO‐9: Designated Areas for Equipment Maintenance and Staging.
BIO‐10: Litter Control.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate for significant impacts to alkali habitats, vernal pools,
seasonal wetlands, riparian habitats, and Riversidian sage scrub as described above, mitigation
for the Project includes the purchase of 234 acres of highly valuable habitat as described in detail
in Section 3.3.2.5, Wetlands and Other Waters, Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation
Measures. In particular, the mitigation areas are:
• Sites that contain relatively intact vernal pools, alkali grasslands, and alkali playas
• Sites that are part of a larger vernal pool landscape
• Sites adjacent to existing preserved areas to create contiguous sections of protected
habitat
• Areas identified as MSHCP criteria cells and core linkage areas
• Areas designated as critical habitat for spreading navarretia
• Sites that provide habitat for large populations of threatened and endangered species
• Sites that are currently unprotected and threatened by urban development
69
33
The mitigation strategy for impacts is focused on the preservation of a large area of rare,
high‐value habitats that are currently threatened by urban developments which would offset
impacts to fragmented habitats within the Project impact area. With the preservation of 234
acres of valuable habitat, the impacts to sensitive natural communities would be less than
significant. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐588 and 4‐19.)
Rationale: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.1 (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐19), the Project impacts to
the sensitive natural communities identified above are considered potentially significant because
they constitute substantial modifications to habitat for many rare plant and animal species.
Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐10 will minimize the Project’s impacts to these sensitive natural
communities by ensure that disruptive activities do not occur in sensitive areas, to the extent
practicable. Additionally, 234 acres of highly valuable habitat that is currently threatened by
urbanizing development will be purchased and protected. With these measures, the Project’s
impacts would be reduced to a level below significant as the Project would result in the
preservation of substantially more habitat than is being disturbed. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐16.)
B. Environmental Factor: Cultural Resources
1. Historic Resources: As discussed in Sections 3.1.8 Cultural Resources and 4.2.2.2
Cultural Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐278 and 4‐19), Caltrans determined that significant effects
may occur on four historical resources as a result of earth moving activities (the TCP, PPAD, CA‐
RIV‐6907/H, and CA‐RIV‐8156/H are determined eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) for the purposes of the
Project). (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐299 and 4‐19.)
Sites CA‐RIV‐6907/H and CA‐RIV‐8156/H are discussed further in Section 3.1.8 of the final
EIR/EIS and identified as mixed component sites containing prehistoric and historical
archaeological components. CA‐RIV‐6907/H is a mixed‐component site consisting of 26 bedrock
outcrops with 50 milling slicks, a lithic scatter, a dry‐laid rock wall, granite quarrying activities,
and bottle fragments. CA‐RIV‐8156/H is a mixed‐component site consisting of one bedrock
outcrop with one milling slick and a lithic scatter, and historical domestic refuse scatter. (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐290 and 3‐291.)
Mixed‐component site CA‐RIV‐6907/H is outside the Area of Direct Impact (ADI) and
would also be protected in place during Project construction through the establishment of an
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and archaeological monitoring. Both prehistoric (bedrock
milling and complex lithic scatter) and historical (rock quarrying and refuse scatter) components
of the site are well outside the ADI. Per Stipulation VIII.C.3 of the 2014 Section 106 Programmatic
Agreement (PA), the site is presumed eligible for the NRHP for the purposes of this Project and
will be protected by designation and enforcement of an ESA, a recommendation acknowledged
by SHPO on August 2, 2010. The prehistoric component of CA‐RIV‐6907/H also potentially
contributes to the NRHP significance of the Potential Prehistoric Archaeological District (PPAD),
which for the purposes of this undertaking, is presumed eligible for listing on the NRHP under the
Section 106 PA Stipulation VIII.C.4. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐293.)
70
34
The prehistoric component of CA‐RIV‐8156/H is outside the Area of Direct Impact (ADI)
and would be protected in place during Project construction through the establishment of an
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and archaeological monitoring. Caltrans has presumed
eligibility under Criterion D for the prehistoric component of CA‐RIV‐8156/H only under the 2014
Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) Stipulation VIII.C.3, with no objection from the CSO.
The prehistoric component of CA‐RIV‐8156/H also potentially contributes to the NRHP
significance of the PPAD, which for the purposes of this undertaking, is presumed eligible for
listing on the NRHP under the Section 106 PA Stipulation VIII.C.4. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐293.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to historic resources to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect
changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would
avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR‐4 in the MMRP in Exhibit
A would reduce the Project impacts related to historic resources to a less than significant level as
follows:
CR‐4: Establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
Rationale: As discussed in Sections 3.1.8.4 and 4.2.2.2 (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐312 and 4‐19,
respectively), Caltrans determined, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred
under Section 106, that the Project impacts to CA‐RIV‐6907/H and CA‐RIV‐8156/H would be less
than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure CR‐4, which establishes an
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and requires monitoring during Project construction. The
ESA, which would be fenced and monitored, would be established to protect the sites to the
north of the ADI. That mitigation will result in avoidance and complete protection of both
resources during construction. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐305 and 4‐19.)
2. Paleontological Resources: As discussed in Sections 3.2.4 Paleontology and
4.2.2.2 Cultural Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐374 and 4‐19, respectively), impacts to
paleontological resources may occur as a result of this project under CEQA, 16 United States Code
(USC) 431‐433, 23 United States Code (USC) 305, 16 United States Code (USC) Section 470aaa
and 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1.9(a). The potential impacts of earth‐moving activities
on the paleontological resources of each rock unit exposed in the Project area were assessed in
Section 3.2.4.3 of the final EIR/EIS. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐19.)
Paleontological resources (an undetermined number of fossilized remains and
unrecorded fossil sites, associated fossil specimen data and corresponding geologic and
geographic site data, and fossil‐bearing strata) would be adversely affected by the permanent
direct and indirect impacts resulting from earth‐moving activities during
71
35
construction of the Project. Direct impacts on the paleontological resources in the Project study
area would result mostly from earth‐moving activities (particularly excavation) in previously
undisturbed strata, making the strata and their resources permanently unavailable for future
scientific investigation. The attendant loss of any fossil specimens and site, associated data, and
the fossil‐bearing strata itself would be a permanent impact. Indirect impacts could result from
unauthorized fossil collecting by construction personnel, rock hounds, and amateur and
commercial fossil collectors who would be afforded easier access to fossil‐bearing strata by
earthmoving activities. Unauthorized fossil collecting would be temporary, but would also result
in the permanent loss of fossils and sites and associated data. The loss of these additional
paleontological resources would be another permanent impact. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐376 and 3‐
377.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to paleontological resources to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures
reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that
would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the
final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures PALEO‐1, including PALEO
1a through PALEO‐1h in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to
paleontological resources to a less than significant level as follows:
PALEO‐1: Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP).
PALEO‐1a: Retention of Qualified Paleontologist.
PALEO‐1b: Museum Storage Agreement.
PALEO‐1c: Additional Paleontological Survey.
PALEO‐1d: Preconstruction Coordination with Resident Engineer.
PALEO‐1e: Monitoring Plan.
PALEO‐1f: Specimen Handling.
PALEO‐1g: Transfer of Fossil Collection to Museum.
PALEO‐1h: Reporting.
Rationale: All potential impacts resulting from earth‐moving activities in fine‐grained
strata at depths greater than 1.2 m (4.0 ft) would be unavoidable to paleontological resources.
A paleontological mitigation plan will address the permanent direct and indirect impacts to
paleontological resources that can accompany the earth‐moving activities (particularly
72
36
excavation) required for construction of the Project. The mitigation program will provide for the
recovery of scientifically important fossilized remains and associated specimen and site data,
preservation of the remains in a recognized museum repository, and availability for future study
by qualified scientific investigators. Without implementation of a mitigation program, these
specimens and data could be lost to earth‐moving activities or to unauthorized fossil collecting.
Specimen recovery would be allowed under 23 USC 305, which provides for the use of federal
transportation funds for paleontological salvage, and CEQA Appendix G (5c). (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐
380.)
Mitigation measures PALEO‐1 and PALEO‐1a through PALEO‐1h would ensure that
impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant, through construction monitoring, fossil
collection, analysis, and reporting, and permanent curation. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐19 and 4‐20.)
C. Environmental Factor: Geology and Soils
1. Seismic Hazards: As discussed in Sections 3.2.3
Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography and 4.2.2.3 Geology and Soils (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐361 and 4‐
20, respectively), the Project is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of Southern
California. In addition to the San Jacinto Fault Zone crossing the northern portion of the Project
study area, the Project study area is situated between two other major active fault zones—the
Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwest and the San Andreas Fault Zone to the northeast. Numerous
other active and potentially active faults and fault zones are located within the general region.
The California Geological Survey (CGS) has designated Earthquake Fault Zones (formerly known
as Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zones) for the San Jacinto, Elsinore, and San Andreas Fault zones
located within or near the study area. The Project in relation to known active and potentially
active faults indicates that the Project would not be exposed to a greater seismic risk than other
sites in the region. The northern portion of the Project (specifically, Roadway Segments L and M)
crosses an active splay of the San Jacinto Fault Zone known as the Casa Loma Fault. The Casa
Loma Fault has been zoned as an Earthquake Fault, and estimates suggest that the fault zone
could produce a maximum moment magnitude (MMAX) 6.9 earthquake. Most of the Project
study area is located in areas considered moderately to highly susceptible to liquefaction. These
areas are considered very highly susceptible to liquefaction and are mapped near the northern
and southern ends of the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐20.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to seismic hazards to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect
changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would
avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 and GEO‐2 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to seismic hazards to a less than
significant level as follows:
73
37
GEO‐1: Surface Fault Rupture.
GEO‐2: Ground Shaking.
GEO‐3: Liquefaction.
Rationale: Moderate to severe seismic shaking may occur in the project area during the
life of the improvements under the Project. The potential to experience substantial seismic
ground shaking is a common hazard for every project in Southern California, and the hazard
cannot be avoided. In general, the Project can be designed to accommodate the ground
accelerations expected to occur along each segment alignment through compliance with the
applicable Caltrans, FHWA, and/or local jurisdiction seismic design standards for construction
and operation of the Build Alternatives. Standard measure GEO‐1 addresses surface fault rupture
and ensures that the design and construction of any of the Build Alternatives take into account
the potential for liquefaction, seismic shaking, surface fault rupture, slope instability, and
erosion. As a result, the potential for structural damage would be less than significant. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐20.)
The location of the Project study area in relation to known active and potentially active
faults indicates that the alignments are not exposed to a greater seismic risk than other sites in
the region. The Project could be impacted by strong ground motion as a result of a significant
earthquake in the area. Seismic ground shaking could be reduced by Mitigation Measure GEO‐2
to less than significant.
Similar to control of excessive seismic ground shaking, compliance with applicable
building and seismic design standards, combined with the implementation of standard measure
GEO‐3, would address seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction that would prevent
significant impacts. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐20.)
2. Soil Erosion: As discussed in Sections 3.2.2 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff
and 4.2.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐330 and 4‐22, respectively) as well
as below in Section III(E)(2) of this Resolution, while the Project would not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, there is the potential for movement of sediment
onsite or offsite. Storm water conveyance facilities are required as part of the Project to ensure
proper onsite drainage for the Project and maintain existing offsite water flows in the Project
area. The existing drainage patterns would be maintained by the storm water conveyance
facilities. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐23.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to soil erosion to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes
or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or
substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
74
38
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ‐1 through WQ‐4 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to soil erosion to a less than
significant level as follows:
WQ‐1: Construction Best Management Practices in Compliance with Project Planning and
Design Guide (PPDG), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Standard Special Provisions (SSP).
WQ‐2: Revegetation.
WQ‐3: Disturbed Slope Stabilization.
WQ‐4: Treatment BMPs.
Rationale: As also discussed in Section III(E)(2) of this Resolution, Measures WQ‐1 through
WQ‐4 would further limit the movement of sediment onsite or offsite. Therefore, the proposed
Project would have a less than significant impact associated with altering the existing drainage
pattern of the area and would not result in substantial soil erosion onsite or offsite. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 4‐23.)
3. Geologic Hazards: As discussed in Sections 3.2.3
Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography and 4.2.2.3 Geology and Soils (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐361 and 4‐
20, respectively), the hills to the west and east of the Project are composed of resistant crystalline
granitic bedrock. These materials are not typically prone to landslides, but may be subject to
rock fall, rock slides, or other rock slope failures. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐368 and 4‐20.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to geologic hazards to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect
changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would
avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO‐4, GEO‐6, GEO‐7, and
GEO‐8 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to geologic hazards to
a less than significant level as follows:
GEO‐4: Compressible/Collapsible Soils.
GEO‐6: Slope Stability.
GEO‐7: Groundwater.
GEO‐8: Excavation Characteristics.
75
39
Rationale: Similar to control of excessive seismic ground shaking, compliance with
applicable building and seismic design standards, combined with the implementation of standard
measures GEO‐4, GEO‐6, GEO‐7, and GEO‐8, would prevent significant impacts related to
unstable soils or geologic units. If excavations into hills are made, or if significant slopes are
planned as part of the roadway, then slope‐stability analyses, which would include evaluating for
rock‐slope failures, will be considered during final design and construction. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐
368.) Additionally, GEO‐7’s requirement to monitor the ground surface and structures around
any excavation and GEO‐8’s measures for noise abatement and dust control during construction
are imposed to further reduce an already insignificant impact. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐371 and3‐
372.) With the implementation of GEO‐4, GEO‐6, GEO‐7, and GEO‐8, impacts from geologic
hazards would be less than significant.
4. Expansive Soils: As discussed in Sections 3.2.3 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography
and 4.2.2.3 Geology and Soils (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐361 and 4‐20, respectively), expansive soils may
be present in the alluvial deposits and in weather portions of the Cretaceous rock along the
roadway segments. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐368 and 4‐21.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to expansive soils to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect
changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would
avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO‐5 in the MMRP in
Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant
level as follows:
GEO‐5: Expansive Soils.
Rationale: Site‐specific investigations will be conducted during the design phase of the
Project to determine whether expansive soils are present. If expansive soil conditions are found
and are considered detrimental to proposed improvements, measures such as overexcavation
and replacement with non‐expansive soil, chemical treatment (e.g., lime or cement), moisture
control, and/or specific structural design for expansive soil conditions will be developed during
design of the Project. Indirect impacts of expansive soils on existing facilities will also be
considered. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐371.) With the implementation of GEO‐5, impacts from expansive
soils, if present, would be less than significant.
D. Environmental Factor: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials:
As discussed in Sections 3.2.5 Hazardous Waste/Materials and 4.2.2.4 Hazards and
Hazardous Materials (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐382 and 4‐21, respectively), the Project vicinity contains
76
40
areas of recognized environmental conditions that would be encountered. These sites include
but are not limited to:
• Former Mobil gasoline station site located at 2070 North Sanderson Avenue
• Various agricultural areas
• Lands contaminated with aerially deposited lead
• Buildings identified for demolition that are constructed with asbestos‐containing
material or lead‐based paint
• Lands with unknown or previously unidentified hazardous materials
• Areas of contaminated groundwater
As discussed in Section 3.2.5, Hazardous Waste/Materials, during construction, there is
the potential to encounter hazardous materials in the soils and existing road materials. The
Project would involve disturbance of soils and demolition of existing buildings and structures;
therefore, hazardous soil contaminates (such as aerially deposited lead (ADL) and structural
materials (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), creosote and other wood treated chemicals,
lead chromate, lead base paint, asbestos containing materials and farm use pesticides may be
encountered during construction. In addition soil and/or groundwater impacted with petroleum
hydrocarbons, halogenated compounds, or other hazardous materials could be encountered at
the properties that would be partially or fully acquired for the Project. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐403
and 4‐21.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to accidental release of hazardous materials to below a level of significance. These
Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated
into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact
as identified in the final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZMAT‐1 through
HAZMAT‐5 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to accidental
release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level as follows:
HAZMAT‐1: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
HAZMAT‐2: Aerially Deposited Lead Surveys.
HAZMAT‐3: Asbestos‐Containing Materials and Lead‐Based Paint Surveys.
HAZMAT‐4: Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan.
HAZMAT‐5: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.
Rationale: The measures above are proposed to address the possibility of encountering
pesticides, aerially deposited lead, and asbestos‐containing materials during construction of the
77
41
Project. Measures HAZMAT‐1 through HAZMAT‐5 list standard practices that are governed by
federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Implementation of these standard measures also
prevents any potentially significant impact related to a potential encounter with hazardous
materials. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐407 and 4‐21.)
2. Hazardous Materials Sites: As discussed in Sections 3.2.5 Hazardous
Waste/Materials and 4.2.2.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐382 and 4‐21,
respectively), a search of hazardous materials facility databases showed that the Project area
contains a limited number of listed sites that handle, use, or dispose of hazardous materials or
sites that have experienced a hazardous materials incident.
As noted in the Final Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Report of June 2008, no visual evidence
of significant environmental risk indicators was noted during the site reconnaissance except for
agricultural use, the former San Jacinto Mobil gasoline station at 2070 North Sanderson Avenue,
and the presence of the former Hemet Sanitary Landfill (see Figure 3.2‐27). Potentially significant
pesticide residues may be present within the portions of the Subject Property used for
agriculture. Pesticide storage or handling facilities were not observed within or adjacent to the
Project area. The former San Jacinto Mobil gasoline station was acquired and demolished by
RCTC after the initial observation during the site reconnaissance. RCTC completed remediation
of the site after the Project baseline date of January 30, 2007. A limited subsurface
environmental evaluation was performed near the former Hemet Sanitary Landfill. The soil
samples were evaluated for concentrations of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs), which
include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals, and total petroleum hydrocarbons carbon
chain (TPHcc). No detectable concentrations of VOCs or TPHcc were identified. In June 2008, this
evaluation was documented in Limited Subsurface Environmental Evaluation, Near the Former
Hemet Sanitary Landfill, Intersection of Esplanade Avenue and Warren Road, Hemet, California
(RCTC 2007). Based on these findings, the former Hemet Sanitary Landfill would not be
considered a permanent impact as long as buried waste is not disturbed by construction. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 3‐389.)
An environmental records search of federal, state, and local databases for properties in
the Project study area, including areas with unique design features, was performed by
FirstSearch® for the 2008 ISA and by EDR for the 2015 Technical Memorandum Updated ISA.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐391.) Table 3.2‐25 lists the environmental database search results for Build
Alternative 1br. The information reviewed in the database report was not indicative of
permanent impacts. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐399 and 3‐400.)
Building the Project would require removing some buildings, structures, and paving
materials to accommodate new construction. Demolition activities may cause lead‐based paint
(LBP) and asbestos‐containing building materials (ACMs) to be encountered. These substances
might be present in structures completed prior to 1980. Proposed measures would address this
impact.
78
42
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to hazardous materials sites to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures
reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that
would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the
final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZMAT‐1 through
HAZMAT‐5in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to hazardous
materials sites to a less than significant level as follows:
HAZMAT‐1: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
HAZMAT‐2: Aerially Deposited Lead Surveys.
HAZMAT‐3: Asbestos‐Containing Materials and Lead‐Based Paint Surveys.
HAZMAT‐4: Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan.
HAZMAT‐5: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.
Rationale: The potential for worker and public exposure to hazardous sites is considered
a less than significant impact. Prior to construction activities, an evaluation of all buildings and
structures to be demolished would need an evaluation to determine the presence of asbestos
containing materials (ACMs) and lead‐based paint (LBP). In general, the Project can be designed
to accommodate remediation that may occur along each segment alignment through compliance
with the applicable laws and regulations for construction and operation of the Project.
Compliance with the applicable laws further reduce the potential for impacts. Construction
activities, including demolition, may also encounter or generate hazardous or solid wastes and
debris. All hazardous or solid wastes and debris encountered or generated during construction
and demolition activities would be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and
local laws and regulations. As a result, the construction of the Project would not increase public
health risks related to hazardous waste and materials in the short term and would decrease these
risks in the long term as a result of the cleanup and remediation of any hazardous waste
contamination that would be encountered during construction of the Project. This would result
in a less than significant impact. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐402.)
Implementation of Measures HAZMAT‐1 through HAZMAT‐5, which list standard
practices that are governed by federal, state, and local laws and regulations, also prevent any
potentially significant impact related to a potential encounter with hazardous materials. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐21.)
3. Emergency Evacuation Plan: As discussed in Sections 3.1.5 Utilities/Emergency
Services and 4.2.2.4 Hazards and Hazardous Material (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐144 and 4‐21,
respectively), the Project would intersect the service areas for the California Highway Patrol
79
43
(CHP), Hemet Police Department (HPD), and Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD). In
addition, the CHP would be responsible for primary patrol of the realigned SR 79. Project
construction could temporarily disrupt circulation patterns and affect the ability of fire and police
to respond to emergency calls. Fire protection that is provided by the Hemet Fire Department
(HFD) and Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) has the potential to be temporarily
impacted. No police stations are in the Project study area. However, police protection provided
by the CHP, HPD, and RCSD has the potential to be impacted if patrol routes are affected by traffic
delays and detours during Project construction. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐145, 3‐148, and 4‐22.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to emergency evacuation plan to below a level of significance. These Mitigation
Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the
Project that would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as
identified in the final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures SERV‐1 and SERV‐2 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to emergency evacuation plan to a
less than significant level as follows:
SERV‐1: Coordination with Emergency Responders Prior to Opening Year (2020).
SERV‐2: Coordination of Temporary Detours with Emergency Responders.
Rationale: Mitigation measure SERV‐2 will ensure that potential Project impacts to
emergency response are less than significant by informing the emergency responders in the area
of any temporary detours or closures so that response routes can be temporarily modified. The
Project would improve the geometry and efficiency of SR 79, enhancing the capability for
emergency response and evacuation. Additionally, measure SERV‐1 will further ensure that any
potential permanent Project impacts to emergency response are minimized. Thus, the impact
will be less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐150 and 4‐22.)
4. Wildland Fires: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.4 (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐21), the Project
is located in a region surrounded by residences intermixed with naturally vegetated areas.
Although not expected as part of the Project, the Project may create a remote risk of exposing
people or structures to loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires because portions of the new
roadway would be constructed in undeveloped areas adjacent to wildlands, where
environmental conditions might present a high fire hazard. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐22.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to wildland fires to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect
changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would
avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
80
44
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO‐7 in the MMRP in
Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to wildland fires to a less than significant level
as follows:
BIO‐7: Fire Season Work.
Rationale: The Project has incorporated measure BIO‐7, regarding fire season work, into
the Project to comply with the MSHCP Guidelines. Because of the remoteness of the risk and the
implementation of BIO‐7, this impact is considered less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐22.)
E. Environmental Factor: Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Water Quality Standards: As discussed in Sections 3.2.2 Water Quality and Storm
Water Runoff and 4.2.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐330 and 4‐22,
respectively), Build Alternative 1br would total about 232.5 ac of impervious surface in the
Project area. It would have two drainage crossings and about 827 ft of roadway that pass over
Salt Creek and Hemet Channel. Also, seven canal
crossings totaling about 1,570 ft would pass over San Diego Canal, Casa Loma Canal, and the
Colorado River Aqueduct. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐349.) There would be about 8,088 ft of roadway
construction adjacent to canals. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐352.)
Temporary impacts associated with storm water quality have the potential to occur
during construction of the proposed Project. The potential impacts include the potential for
increased sediment and pollutant loading to surface waters and groundwater from storm water
surface runoff. Disturbance of soil from site grading, excavation, and modification to the
landscape could increase the potential that storm water runoff could contribute sediments into
receiving waters. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐22.)
Although not expected or part of the proposed Project, pollutant loading into receiving
waters also could occur from accidental discharge of waste products during construction, such
as petroleum byproducts from vehicles and equipment. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐23.)
Due primarily to the increase in impervious ground cover, potential permanent water
quality impacts include increased concentrations of any of the following types of pollutants
entering surface waters or groundwater: total suspended solids, nutrients
(nitrogen/phosphorus), pesticides, metals, pathogens, trash, biochemical oxygen demand, and
total dissolved solids. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐23.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to water quality standards to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures
reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that
would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the
final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
81
45
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ‐1 through WQ‐4 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to water quality standards to a less
than significant level as follows:
WQ‐1: Construction Best Management Practices in Compliance with Project Planning and
Design Guide (PPDG), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Standard Special Provisions (SSP).
WQ‐2: Revegetation.
WQ‐3: Disturbed Slope Stabilization.
WQ‐4: Treatment BMPs.
WQ‐5: Dewatering Permit.
Rationale: Compliance with permit conditions, standard best management practices,
MSHCP requirements, and other legal requirements ensure that the Project will not result in
significant impacts to water quality. As summarized in WQ‐1, best management practices will be
implemented in compliance with the Construction General Permit to stabilize the disturbed soil,
minimize erosion, and capture and remove sediment suspended in runoff before it leaves the
Project site. These best management practices will prevent any significant impacts. WQ‐1 also
includes best management practices related to spill prevention and control that would ensure
the risk associated with accidental spills is minimal. Therefore, these potential temporary
impacts would be considered less than significant. Similar to the temporary impacts,
implementation of the best management practices summarized in WQ‐1 through WQ‐5 would
protect water quality and ensure that concentrations of pollutants are either below existing
concentrations or below the objectives established in the Basin Plan. Therefore, these impacts
would be considered less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐22 and 4‐23.)
2. Drainage and Erosion: As discussed in Sections 3.2.2 Water Quality and Storm
Water Runoff and 4.2.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐330 and 4‐22,
respectively), while the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, there is the potential for movement of sediment onsite or offsite. Storm water
conveyance facilities are required as part of the Project to ensure proper onsite drainage for the
Project and maintain existing offsite water flows in the Project area. The existing drainage
patterns would be maintained by the storm water conveyance facilities. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐23.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to drainage and erosion to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures
reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that
would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the
final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
82
46
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ‐1 through WQ‐4 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to drainage and erosion to a less
than significant level as follows:
WQ‐1: Construction Best Management Practices in Compliance with Project Planning and
Design Guide (PPDG), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Standard Special Provisions (SSP).
WQ‐2: Revegetation.
WQ‐3: Disturbed Slope Stabilization.
WQ‐4: Treatment BMPs.
Rationale: Measures WQ‐1 through WQ‐4 would further limit the movement of sediment
onsite or offsite. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact
associated with altering the existing drainage pattern of the area and would not result in
substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐23.)
3. Runoff: As discussed in Sections 3.2.2 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff and
4.2.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐330 and 4‐22, respectively), runoff water
could exceed the capacity of existing roadside ditches in the area. Even though existing roadside
ditches already flood during current conditions, the Project could increase that flow even more.
Although the Project has been designed to maintain existing drainage patterns whenever
possible, localized runoff could concentrate in pipes or ditches and be discharged directly or
indirectly into creeks. This change in runoff characteristics and volume could lead to streambank
erosion and increased scour in unlined drainage ditches. The result could be an increase in
sediment and turbidity in receiving waters. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐348 and 4‐23.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to runoff to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or
alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or
substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ‐4 in the MMRP in
Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to runoff to a less than significant level as
follows:
WQ‐4: Treatment BMPs
Rationale: To mitigate potential runoff flow to less than significant, measure WQ‐4
(Treatment BMPs) would be implemented. Specifically, project features such as detention basins
and overflow risers would be designed and incorporated such that pre‐Project flow conditions
83
47
would be maintained. Therefore, these impacts would be considered less than significant. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐23.)
F. Environmental Factor: Land Use and Planning
1. Division of Established Community: As discussed in Sections 3.1.4 Community
Impacts and 4.2.2.6 Land Use (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐104 and 4‐23, respectively), the Project
improvements would result in minor changes in access and circulation; however, they would also
provide the traveling public with improvements in mobility and increase the efficiency of the
existing circulation system. The proposed SR 79 would be located in and adjacent to a number
of communities defined for the Project: Winchester, Rural Winchester, Green Acres, Emerging
Hemet, Tres Cerritos, Emerging San Jacinto, Emerging Sunrise, and Gateway Specific Plan/River.
In particular, the Project has the potential to divide the Rural Winchester Community. The
Project would traverse the central portion of the Rural Winchester Community, passing through
agricultural, commercial/industrial, residential, rural residential, services/ facilities, and
undeveloped areas. The Project would require that access be terminated along SR
79/Winchester Road, north and south of Domenigoni Parkway and that access be terminated
along East Grand Avenue and Milan Road, west of Stueber Lane. The Project would divide the
community of Rural Winchester. However, the Project would not block any existing roadways
that provide east‐to‐west vehicular access. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐118 through 3‐120, 4‐23, and 4‐
24.)
The Project would require short‐term and long‐term traffic detours. Short‐term traffic
detours within existing rights‐of‐way would be necessary at various SR 79 bridge crossings of local
streets and could occur in any of the communities identified for the Project. Bridge construction
activities would include the construction and removal of bridge falsework and other short‐term
construction activities. Short‐term traffic detours would be required for street closures that
occur up to a maximum of 10 consecutive nights and for no more than 8 hours per night at each
location over the duration of Project construction. Several short‐term traffic detours are
expected at bridge sites over the duration of Project construction. Because these detours would
occur within established transportation corridors for short periods (less than 30 days) and would
be limited to nighttime hours, they would not be expected to affect community character or
cohesion. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐126.)
Construction of the Devonshire Avenue bridge over the new roadway would require
traffic to be detoured onto California Avenue, SR 74/Florida Avenue, and Warren Road. These
long‐term detours would occur in the Emerging Hemet and Tres Cerritos Hills communities.
Although the detours would be long term (more than 30 consecutive days), they would occur
within established transportation corridors that are part of the existing local circulation system
and would not divide or disrupt the study area communities defined for this analysis. However,
long‐term detours would produce temporary disruption of circulation patterns that might
adversely affect access to community service facilities located within the study area. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 3‐126.)
84
48
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to division of established community to below a level of significance. These Mitigation
Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the
Project that would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as
identified in the final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures COM‐1 through COM‐3 in
the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to division of established
community to a less than significant level as follows:
COM‐1: Establish Pedestrian/Bike/Equestrian Paths.
COM‐2: School District Coordination.
COM‐3: Traffic Management Plan for Access.
Rationale: The Mitigation Measures would address minor changes in access and
circulation and minimize the potential impacts of Alternative 1br by enhancing non‐vehicular
community interaction. They include outreach and public communication plans to avoid
disruption of access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 3‐127.)
2. Land Use Plan Consistency: As discussed in Sections 3.1.1 Land Use and 4.2.2.6
Land Use (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐7 and 4‐23, respectively), applicable land use plans include SCAG
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, SCAG Regional Transportation Plan, Riverside County
General Plan, City of Hemet General Plan, and the City of San Jacinto General Plan. (final EIR/EIS,
pp. 3‐7 and 4‐25.)
California law requires that all of a jurisdiction’s General Plan elements be consistent with
one another and that the jurisdiction’s implementation tools, such as zoning and Specific Plans,
be overall consistent with the General Plan. At the time of the final EIR/EIS, the SR‐79
Realignment project is in conflict with specific aspects of the land use plans for City of Hemet and
the City of San Jacinto. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐25.)
Alternative 1br, specifically with roadway segments C, D, G and H would be inconsistent
with specific segments of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in the City of Hemet 2030
General Plan. The alignments of Build Alternatives 1a, 1b, 1b1 and 2a would also be inconsistent.
The alignments of Build Alternatives 1a and 2a would be inconsistent with the City of San Jacinto’s
General Plan. Both Hemet and San Jacinto, however, anticipated changes in the proposed
alignments when their General Plan amendments occurred in 2012 and language was included
that they would revise their general plans at the appropriate time, which demonstrates that the
Project objectives are consistent with the general plans, overall, even though the specific
alignments may not be the same. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐31, 4‐25 and 4‐26.)
85
49
The selection Build Alternative 1br would be generally consistent with the goals and
policies of the City’s/County’s General Plan, which promotes provision of a transportation system
to support planned land use within the city. However, Alternative 1br is inconsistent with the
designated roadways and land uses (residential, commercial, and industrial). As noted above, if
necessary, Hemet intends to revise its General Plan to be consistent with the proposed project.
Even if that does not occur, this alternative would still be consistent with overall policies and
goals of the general plans, and so the discrepancy with the alignment would not be considered a
significant impact. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐31 and 4‐26.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to land use plan consistency to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures
reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that
would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the
final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures LU‐1 through LU‐7 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to land use plan consistency to a
less than significant level as follows:
LU‐1: City of Hemet General Plan and Build Alternative 1a.
LU‐2: City of San Jacinto General Plan and Build Alternative 1a.
LU‐3: City of Hemet General Plan and Build Alternative 1b and Design Option 1b1.
LU‐4: City of Hemet General Plan and Build Alternative 2a.
LU‐5: City of San Jacinto General Plan and Build Alternative 2a.
LU‐7: General Plan Consistency.
Rationale: Measures LU‐1 through LU‐5 will be required to bring the Project into
concurrence with applicable plans and policies and into consistency with the goals in the General
Plans. Riverside County includes all potential alignments in their General Plan so the Project
would be consistent with the General Plan, and no measures are proposed. This approach by all
three affected jurisdictions means that the Project, including the alignment ultimately selected,
will be consistent with the General Plans of the jurisdictions; although, it will be necessary for the
City of Hemet or the City of San Jacinto to carry out their commitments to amend their plans. As
implementation of measure LU‐7 (General Plan Consistency), the SR‐79 Realignment project
Manager will request that the County of Riverside, the City of San Jacinto, and community of
Hemet amend their respective General Plans to reflect the final SR 79 realignment, interchange
locations, and modification of land use designations for property that will be acquired for the
project and there the overall policies and goals of the general plan would be consistent.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐26.)
86
50
G. Environmental Factor: Population and Housing
1. Displace Existing Housing: As discussed in Sections 3.1.2 Growth and 4.2.2.8
Population and Housing (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐ 60 and 4‐35, respectively), the Project could displace
some residences, as shown in Table A‐3 (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section XIII) and summarized
in Table 4.2‐2 (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐36). The Project could displace 26 residential units. However,
sufficient resources would be available to provide satisfactory replacements for Project‐related
residential relocations. The unincorporated areas of Winchester and the Cities of Hemet and San
Jacinto have adequate housing stock available that would satisfy the decent, safe, and sanitary
standards for relocating residents who are displaced from the impacted area. (final EIR/EIS, pp.
3‐ 136, 4.35, and 4‐36.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to displacing existing housing to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures
reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that
would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the
final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures RELOC‐1 in the MMRP in
Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to displacing existing housing to a less than
significant level as follows:
RELOC‐1: Relocation Assistance.
Rationale: The Project would be located on the periphery of established communities,
along the eastern boundary of Winchester and the western boundaries of the cities of Hemet
and San Jacinto. It is recognized that any relocation would be a momentous event in the life of
any family that was required to move as a result of being within the Project right‐of‐way. Based
on the locations of the Project alignments, the projected number of relocations, and
implementation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 as amended, impacts related to the Project as a whole would be considered less than
significant after the implementation of RELOC‐1. Construction of replacement housing would
not be required.
2. Displace People: As discussed in Sections 3.1.2 Growth and 4.2.2.8 Population
and Housing (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐ 60 and 4‐35, respectively), the Project could displace some
residents, as shown in Table A‐3 (final EIR/EIS, Appendix A, Section XIII) and summarized in Table
4.2‐2 (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐36). The Project could displace 115 residents. However, sufficient
resources would be available to provide satisfactory replacements for Project‐related residential
relocations. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐135, 4.35, and 4‐36.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to displacing people to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect
87
51
changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would
avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures RELOC‐1 in the MMRP in
Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to displacing people to a less than significant
level as follows:
RELOC‐1: Relocation Assistance.
Rationale: The Project would be located on the periphery of established communities,
along the eastern boundary of Winchester and the western boundaries of the cities of Hemet
and San Jacinto. It is recognized that any relocation would be a momentous event in the life of
any family that was required to move as a result of being within the Project right‐of‐way. Based
on the locations of the Project alignments, the projected number of relocations, and
implementation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 as amended, impacts related to the Project as a whole would be considered less than
significant after the implementation of RELOC‐1. Construction of replacement housing would
not be required.
H. Environmental Factor: Public Services
1. Fire Protection: As discussed in Sections 3.1.5 Utilities/Emergency Services and
4.2.2.9 Public Services (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐144 and 4‐36, respectively), Project construction could
temporarily disrupt circulation patterns and affect the ability to respond to emergency calls. Fire
protection that is provided by the Hemet Fire Department (HFD) and Riverside County Fire
Department (RCFD) has the potential to be temporarily impacted. Because California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection operations at Ryan Air Attack Base are aerial rather
than ground based, the Project would not interfere with these emergency operations. (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐152, 4‐36, and 4‐37.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to fire protection to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect
changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would
avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures SERV‐1 and SERV‐2 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to fire protection to a less than
significant level as follows:
SERV‐1: Coordination with Emergency Responders Prior to Opening Year (2020).
SERV‐2: Coordination of Temporary Detours with Emergency Responders.
88
52
Rationale: Implementation of mitigation measures SERV‐1 and SERV‐2 would reduce
impacts related to traffic delays and detours to less than significant. Additionally, although the
Project could attract higher traffic volumes, with the potential need for increased fire response,
mitigation measure SERV‐2 would reduce any potential impacts to emergency response to a less
than significant level.
2. Police Protection: As discussed in Sections 3.1.5 Utilities/Emergency Services and
4.2.2.9 Public Services (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐144 and 4‐36, respectively), Project construction could
temporarily disrupt circulation patterns and affect the ability to respond to emergency calls. The
Project would intersect the service areas for the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Hemet Police
Department (HPD), and Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD). In addition, the CHP
would be responsible for
primary patrol of the realigned SR 79. No police stations are in the Project study area. However,
police protection provided by the CHP, HPD, and RCSD has the potential to be impacted if patrol
routes are affected by traffic delays and detours during Project
construction. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐152, 4‐36, and 4‐37.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to police protection to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect
changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would
avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures SERV‐1 and SERV‐2 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to police protection to a less than
significant level as follows:
SERV‐1: Coordination with Emergency Responders Prior to Opening Year (2020).
SERV‐2: Coordination of Temporary Detours with Emergency Responders.
Rationale: Implementation of mitigation measures SERV‐1 and SERV‐2 would reduce
impacts related to traffic delays and detours to less than significant. Additionally although the
Project could attract higher traffic volumes, with the potential need for increased police
response, mitigation measure SERV‐2 would reduce any potential impacts to emergency
response to a less than significant level.
3. Schools: As discussed in Sections 3.1.4 Community Impacts and 4.2.2.9 Public
Services (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐104 and 4‐36), the Project would bisect school attendance areas and
could disrupt routes to and from local schools in the Hemet Unified School District and San Jacinto
Unified School District. The Project does not propose the construction of residences or other
facilities that would result in an increased number of students. Therefore, no permanent impacts
would occur to overall school enrollment. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐115 and 4‐37.)
89
53
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to schools to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or
alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or
substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures COM‐2 and COM‐3 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to schools to a less than significant
level as follows:
COM‐2: School District Coordination.
COM‐3: Traffic Management Plan for Access.
Rationale: Modifications to school routes commonly occurs and so this is not considered
a significant impact. Implementation of measures COM‐2 and COM‐3 would minimize potential
impacts by identifying detour routes that maintain adequate access and communicating that
information to the schools and community.
4. Parks: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.9 Public Services (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐36), the
Project would be immediately west of a neighborhood park located along Cherry Laurel Lane
(Tamarisk Park) and another adjacent to Cottonwood Avenue (Ambassador Street Sports Field).
However, access to these resources would be maintained throughout construction and
recreational activities, features, or attributes of the Ambassador Street Sports Field and Tamarisk
Park would not be affected nor would any qualifying aspects of the resource be substantially
impaired. Also, the Project would not encroach onto the park property and would not impact
the continued use of the parks during construction or operation. In addition, another
neighborhood park is available within the same residential area, less than 984 ft away from
Ambassador Street Sports Field. This impact is considered less than significant. (final EIR/EIS, p.
4‐37.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to parks to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or
alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or
substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation and Minimization Measures COM‐3
and LU‐8 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to parks to a less
than significant level as follows:
COM‐3: Traffic Management Plan for Access.
90
54
LU‐8: Public Notification of Alternative San Jacinto Parks.
Rationale: Implementation of mitigation and minimization measures COM‐3 and LU‐8
would further reduce temporary access impacts to the parks. RCTC and Caltrans would
coordinate with the affected neighborhood to avoid disruption of access, as well as implement a
Traffic Management Plan for Access. The Traffic Management Plan will identify traffic control
measures and detour routes to maintain adequate access to the parks. Additionally, availability
and location of alternative neighborhood parks and recreational facilities will be properly noticed
to the public. Implementation of these measures will reduce these potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
5. Other Public Facilities: As discussed in Sections 3.1.1.3 Parks and Recreational
Facilities and 4.2.2.9 Public Services (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐54 and 4‐36, respectively), there are no
existing bike paths or trails in the Project study area. Some trails and bike paths have been
designated in various planning documents, but none have been built nor are there any plans to
build them. At a minimum, a five‐foot sidewalk will be constructed on at least one side of the
bridge. Project construction could temporarily disrupt traffic circulation patterns and adversely
affect access to the various daycares, retirement/assisted living centers, hospitals, public service
facilities, and waste disposal facilities. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐37.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to other public facilities to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures
reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that
would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the
final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures COM‐3 in the MMRP in
Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to other public facilities to a less than
significant level as follows:
COM‐3: Traffic Management Plan for Access.
Rationale: RCTC and Caltrans would coordinate to avoid disruption of bridge access, as
well as implement a Traffic Management Plan for Access. The Traffic Management Plan will
identify traffic control measures and detour routes to maintain adequate access.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure COM‐3 would reduce these potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
I. Environmental Factor: Traffic and Transportation
1. Inadequate Emergency Access: As discussed in Sections 3.1.5 Utilities/Emergency
Services and 4.2.2.11 Transportation/Traffic (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐144 and 4‐38, respectively), the
Project would bisect the service areas for Hemet Fire Department (HFD) and Riverside County
Fire Department (RCFD). Because California Department of Forestry and Fire operations at Ryan
91
55
Air Attack Base are aerial based, the Project would not interfere with these emergency
operations. The Project also would bisect the service areas for the California Highway Patrol
(CHP), Hemet Police Department (HPD), and Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD). In
addition, the CHP would be responsible for primary patrol of realigned SR 79. (final EIR/EIS, pp.
3‐152 and 4‐38.)
Project construction could temporarily disrupt circulation patterns and affect the ability
of fire and police to respond to emergency calls. Fire protection that is provided by the Hemet
Fire Department (HFD) and Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) has the potential to be
temporarily impacted. No police stations are in the Project study area. However, police
protection provided by the CHP, HPD, and RCSD has the potential to be impacted if patrol routes
are affected by traffic delays and detours during Project construction. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐152
and 4‐38.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to inadequate emergency access to below a level of significance. These Mitigation
Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the
Project that would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as
identified in the final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures SERV‐1 and SERV‐2 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to inadequate emergency access to
a less than significant level as follows:
SERV‐1: Coordination with Emergency Responders Prior to Opening Year (2020).
SERV‐2: Coordination of Temporary Detours with Emergency Responders.
Rationale: Implementation of mitigation measures SERV‐1 and SERV‐2 would
reduce impacts related to inadequate emergency access to less than significant by informing the
emergency responders in the area of any temporary detours or closures so that response routes
can be temporarily modified. Prior to and during construction, and prior to Opening Year, RCT C
and the construction contractor will coordinate with the emergency responders listed below to
ensure that, if necessary, affected response routes can be maintained or updated and additional
personnel can be secured to ensure that emergency response in the Project area continues to
meet applicable requirements.
California Highway Patrol
City of Hemet Fire Department
City of Hemet Police Department
Riverside County Fire Department (including contracted fire protection for the City
of San Jacinto)
92
56
Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (including contracted police protection for
the City of San Jacinto)
With implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
J. Environmental Factor: Utilities and Service Systems
1. New or Expanded Stormwater Facilities: As discussed in Section 4.2.2.12 (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐38), stormwater conveyance facilities are required as part of the Project to ensure
proper drainage and maintain existing offsite water flows. The storm water conveyance facilities
will maintain existing drainage patterns and prevent erosion, siltation, and flooding. The build
alternatives include modifications to existing storm water drainage facilities as well as new storm
water management features to accommodate increase storm water flows. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐
38.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to new or expanded stormwater facilities to below a level of significance. These
Mitigation Measures reflect changes or alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated
into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact
as identified in the final EIR/EIS. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ‐1 in the MMRP in
Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to new or expanded stormwater facilities to
a less than significant level as follows:
WQ‐1: Construction Best Management Practices in Compliance with Project Planning and
Design Guide (PPDG), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Standard Special Provisions (SSP).
Rationale: Because construction of the stormwater conveyance facilities will be
conducted in accordance with the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements, including the implementation of best management practices summarized in WQ‐
1, the impacts are considered less than significant.
2. Landfills: As discussed in Section 3.1.2 Growth and Appendix A‐CEQA
Environmental Checklist, operation and maintenance of the Project is expected to produce
refuse, debris, and landscape trimmings over the life of the Project. This would not occur along
the entire alignment at the same time, and the amount of material produced would represent a
small contribution to the overall planned capacity at Lamb Canyon Landfill. The estimated
closure date for the Lamb Canyon Landfill is the first quarter of 2023, which is 12 years before
the 20‐Year Design Horizon of the Project. Other disposal options would be available for the
Project in the event Lamb Canyon Landfill is unavailable and/or the facility is closed before Project
construction is completed. These options include disposal at other Riverside County Waste
93
57
Management Department facilities or transport to a waste facility outside Riverside County.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐115)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would reduce the Project impacts
related to landfills to below a level of significance. These Mitigation Measures reflect changes or
alterations that Caltrans has required, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or
substantially lessen this potentially significant Project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures COM‐4 in the MMRP in
Exhibit A would reduce the Project impacts related to landfills to a less than significant level as
follows:
COM‐4: Recycling during Operations.
Rationale: Because the specific quantities of material requiring disposal are not know,
mitigation measure COM‐4 would reduce the impacts to less than significant by managing Project
operation and maintenance activities to ensure that refuse, debris, and landscape trimmings will
be reused or recycled at a suitable recycling facility as appropriate. This will reduce the amount
of material disposed at Lamb Canyon Landfill.
94
58
SECTION IV
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Notwithstanding the existing regulations, the specific Project design features discussed in
the final EIR/EIS for the Project, the Mitigation Measures and the other conditions set forth in
the MMRP in Exhibit A for the Project, the impacts discussed in this Section IV cannot be fully
mitigated to a less than significant level. For each impact that is determined to be significant and
unavoidable, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for that impact and is
set forth later in Section X of this Resolution.
A. Environmental Factor: Aesthetics
1. Scenic Vistas: As discussed in Sections 3.1.7 Visual/Aesthetics and 4.2.3.1
Aesthetics (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐236 and 4‐39, respectively), the County of Riverside, City of Hemet,
and City of San Jacinto have established policy goals to preserve natural ridgelines, the scenic
quality of hills, and to avoid slope scarring. The proposed Project would alter the natural
ridgelines, cause scarring, and require substantial removal of existing hillsides and the creation
of visually prominent cut slopes, especially in the West Hemet Hills. All of these changes would
be inconsistent with local policy goals and be considered adverse. Noise barriers on elevated
roadways also would have the potential to create substantial visual impacts. Most Project noise
barriers would exceed 0.5 mi in length and 10 ft in height. Noise barriers on elevated roadways
would also have the potential to eliminate panoramic views that would otherwise be available to
motorists. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐263 and 3‐272.)
Findings: The mitigation measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on scenic vistas to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures reflect changes
or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which would lessen
the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below a level of significance. (State
CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures VIS‐1 through VIS‐29 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related
to scenic vistas as follows:
VIS‐1: Corridor Master Plan.
VIS‐2: Mitigation Planting/Highway Planting.
VIS‐3: Plantings to Bring Down Apparent Scale.
95
59
VIS‐4: Minimize Visual Impacts with Revegetation.
VIS‐5: Textured Noise Barriers.
VIS‐6: Aesthetic Treatment to Structures.
VIS‐7: Planting on Structures Such as Retaining Walls and Bridges to Minimize Glare.
VIS‐8: Concentrations of Trees and Shrubs at Interchanges.
VIS‐9: Screening Treatments in Winchester.
VIS‐10: Noise Barrier Screening in Winchester.
VIS‐11: Prepare Contour Grading Plans.
VIS‐12: Cut Slope Design.
VIS‐13: Over‐Excavate Slopes.
VIS‐14: Create Artificial Draws.
VIS‐15: Weathering of Exposed Rock.
VIS‐16: Revegetate Cut Slopes.
VIS‐17: Erosion Control.
VIS‐18: Hydroseed Fill Slopes.
VIS‐19: Texturize Fill Slopes.
VIS‐20: Revegetate Fill Slopes.
VIS‐21: Benched Slopes.
VIS‐22: Fill Slope Design.
VIS‐23: Earthen Basins.
VIS‐24: Nonreflective Materials.
VIS‐25: Overcrossing Design.
VIS‐26: Noise Barrier Design Treatments.
VIS‐27: Noise Barrier Landscaping.
VIS‐28: Noise Barrier Surfaces.
VIS‐29: Lighting.
Rationale: The Preferred Alternative would create the least amount of disturbance and
scaring to the west, northwest, and north slopes of the West Hemet Hills of all the Build
alternatives and design options. No mitigation measures would fully reduce the impacts of the
removal of large portions of the existing hillsides and ridges seen from the communities of
Winchester and Green Acres. Designs for noise barriers are under consideration. When feasible,
they would be developed in the preparation of the Corridor Master Plan. The noise barriers
would have design treatments to make them attractive landscape elements and to integrate
them appropriately into the views toward the roadway from the surrounding area. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 3‐273.) Despite mitigation and minimization measures, the impacts to scenic vistas would
remain significant and unavoidable.
2. Scenic Highways: As discussed in Sections 3.1.7 Visual/Aesthetics and 4.2.3.1
Aesthetics (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐236 and 4‐39, respectively), the Project would be visible to travelers
heading towards SR 79 along parts of State Eligible Scenic Highway SR 74 (from the western
boundary of the San Bernardino National Forest to its junction with SR 111) not screened by
vegetation within a section of the highway approximately 2 mi west of the Project to
approximately 1.5 mi east. Changes to the west and north sides of the West Hemet Hills would
96
60
be more visible along the portion of SR 74 west and north of the proposed Project than from the
section of highway east of it. This would be the case because there would be direct views of the
west and north sides of the West Hemet Hills from portions of SR 74 west and north of the
proposed Project. Views towards the proposed Project along portions of SR 74 east of it would
be limited to the northern edge of the West Hemet Hills. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐39 and 4‐40.)
Findings: The mitigation measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on scenic highways to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures reflect
changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which would
lessen the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below a level of significance.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures VIS‐1 through VIS‐29 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related
to scenic highways as follows:
VIS‐1: Corridor Master Plan.
VIS‐2: Mitigation Planting/Highway Planting.
VIS‐3: Plantings to Bring Down Apparent Scale.
VIS‐4: Minimize Visual Impacts with Revegetation.
VIS‐5: Textured Noise Barriers.
VIS‐6: Aesthetic Treatment to Structures.
VIS‐7: Planting on Structures Such as Retaining Walls and Bridges to Minimize Glare.
VIS‐8: Concentrations of Trees and Shrubs at Interchanges.
VIS‐9: Screening Treatments in Winchester.
VIS‐10: Noise Barrier Screening in Winchester.
VIS‐11: Prepare Contour Grading Plans.
VIS‐12: Cut Slope Design.
VIS‐13: Over‐Excavate Slopes.
VIS‐14: Create Artificial Draws.
VIS‐15: Weathering of Exposed Rock.
VIS‐16: Revegetate Cut Slopes.
VIS‐17: Erosion Control.
VIS‐18: Hydroseed Fill Slopes.
VIS‐19: Texturize Fill Slopes.
VIS‐20: Revegetate Fill Slopes.
VIS‐21: Benched Slopes.
VIS‐22: Fill Slope Design.
VIS‐23: Earthen Basins.
97
61
VIS‐24: Nonreflective Materials.
VIS‐25: Overcrossing Design.
VIS‐26: Noise Barrier Design Treatments.
VIS‐27: Noise Barrier Landscaping.
VIS‐28: Noise Barrier Surfaces.
VIS‐29: Lighting.
Rationale: Travelers along SR 74 would see the Grand Avenue design refinement as would
some residents in the eastern part of Winchester. No mitigation measures would fully reduce
the impacts of the removal of large portions of the existing hillsides and ridges seen from SR 74.
Despite mitigation and minimization measures, the impacts to scenic highways would remain
significant and unavoidable.
3. Visual Character and Quality: As discussed in Sections 3.1.7 Visual/Aesthetics and
4.2.3.1 Aesthetics (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐236 and 4‐39, respectively), the Project would cause
scarring along the north and west slopes of the West Hemet Hills. Noise barriers have been
proposed as abatement for noise impacts generated by the Project and were found to have the
potential to create substantial visual impacts. Most Project noise barriers would exceed 0.5 mi
in length and 10 feet in height. Where the addition of these barriers would contribute to making
the Project substantially higher than surrounding buildings, the character and quality of views in
the area could be substantially altered. Noise barriers on elevated roadways also have the
potential to eliminate panoramic views that would otherwise be available to motorists. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐41.)
Findings: The mitigation measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on visual character and quality to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures
reflect changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
would lessen the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below a level of
significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation and Minimization Measures VIS‐12
through VIS 29 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by
reducing impacts related to visual character and quality as follows:
VIS‐12: Cut Slope Design.
VIS‐13: Over‐Excavate Slopes.
VIS‐14: Create Artificial Draws.
VIS‐15: Weathering of Exposed Rock.
VIS‐16: Revegetate Cut Slopes.
98
62
VIS‐17: Erosion Control.
VIS‐18: Hydroseed Fill Slopes.
VIS‐19: Texturize Fill Slopes.
VIS‐20: Revegetate Fill Slopes.
VIS‐21: Benched Slopes.
VIS‐22: Fill Slope Design.
VIS‐23: Earthen Basins.
VIS‐24: Nonreflective Materials.
VIS‐25: Overcrossing Design.
VIS‐26: Noise Barrier Design Treatments.
VIS‐27: Noise Barrier Landscaping.
VIS‐28: Noise Barrier Surfaces.
VIS‐29: Lighting.
Rationale: The Preferred Alternative would be sited farther away from the tops of the
West Hemet Hills and lower on their slopes than the other Build alternatives and design options.
When viewed from areas to the west (such as Key Views 9a and 9b identified in Table 3.1‐62 in
the final EIR/EIS), less slope cut and fill would be seen and there would be less of a reduction in
visual quality compared to the other Build alternatives and design options. However, the
Preferred Alternative, would still reduce the visual quality of views towards the West Hemet Hills
from Green Acres, Winchester, and other areas. No mitigation measures would fully reduce the
impacts of the removal of large portions of the existing hillsides and ridges seen from the
communities of Winchester and Green Acres. Despite mitigation and minimization measures,
the impacts to visual character and visual impacts associated with removal of large segments of
existing hillsides (particularly the West Hemet Hills), and the Project’s impact on views from
Clayton A. Record, Jr. Viewpoint and the North Hills Trail would remain significant and
unavoidable.
B. Environmental Factor: Air Quality
1. Violate Air Quality Standards: As discussed in Sections 3.2.6 Air Quality and
4.2.3.2 Air Quality (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐409 and 4‐41, respectively), the proposed Project would
create short‐term potentially significant air quality impacts from construction‐related activities.
Project construction would result in temporary emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), reactive organic gas (ROG), and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters
of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) and less than 10 micrometers (PM10). These emissions would
come from stationary or mobile‐powered onsite construction equipment such as signal/message
boards, excavators, backhoes, and graders. Construction activities are expected to occur during
a 39 to 40‐month period for 5 days per week and up to 24 hours per day for some activities. This
intensive construction schedule, in addition to the hauling requirements, would be expected to
result in elevated emissions of ozone (O3) precursors (NOX and ROG), PM10, and PM2.5. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐41.)
99
63
Findings: The mitigation measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on violation of air quality standards to below a level of significance. The mitigation
measures reflect changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which would lessen the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below
a level of significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐14 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related
to violation of air quality standards as follows:
AQ‐1: First‐Stage Smog Alerts.
AQ‐2: Electricity.
AQ‐3: Construction Parking.
AQ‐4: Construction Truck Routes.
AQ‐5: Onsite Construction Traffic Control.
AQ‐6: Construction Vehicle Turn Lanes.
AQ‐7: Blasting Activities.
AQ‐8: Signal Boards.
AQ‐9: Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs).
AQ‐10: Construction Equipment.
AQ‐11: Construction Areas.
AQ‐12: Street Sweeping.
AQ‐13: Traffic Speed Control.
AQ‐14: Grading.
Rationale: Minimization measures would be implemented to reduce PM10 and PM2.5
emissions to a less than significant level. However, NOX emissions would remain elevated after
implementation of minimization measures. Therefore, air quality impacts from NOx emissions
during construction would remain significant and unavoidable.
C. Environmental Factor: Biological Resources
1. Sensitive or Special Status Species:
As discussed in Sections 3.3.1 Natural Communities, 3.3.3 Plant Species, 3.3.4 Animal
Species, 3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species, and 4.2.3.3 Biological Resources (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐493, 3‐592, 3‐653, 3‐717, and 4‐42, respectively), all Build Alternatives would
permanently impact sensitive plant species covered by the Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), as well as sensitive plant species not covered by the MSHCP.
100
64
Long‐term conservation value (LTCV) popluations, as definied in the MSHCP, are Narrow Endemic
and Criteria Area plants that are located in Criteria Area Cells or require survey areas and that
can contribute toward MSHCP conservation objectives and reserve assembly. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐
42.) The Build Alternatives would also permanently impact threatened and/or endangered
animal species, MSHCP Covered Species, and special‐statute animal species not covered by the
MSHCP. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐47.)
Plants:
Permanent direct or permanent indirect impacts to nine special‐status plant species
would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Seven of these nine are MSHCP Covered
Species. Smooth tarplant is the only plant species with populations with LTCV that would be
impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Two special‐status plants, paniculate tarplant and
Robinson’s peppergrass, are not included in the MSHCP. The nine special‐status plant species
that would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative are listed below, followed by an assessment
of their LTCV if applicable. Specific impacts to plant populations and individuals with LTCV are
summarized in Table 3.3‐3 of the final EIR/EIS.
• Davidson’s saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) – CNPS List 1B.2
• Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) – CNPS List 1B.1
• Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) – CNPS List 3.2
• Long‐spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina) – CNPS List 1B.2
• Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) – CNPS List 4.2
• Vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens) – CNPS List 3.2
• Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) – CNPS List 1B.1
• Robinson’s peppergrass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) – CNPS List 1B.2
• Little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus) – CNPS List 3.1
(final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐44.)
Some of the populations that would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative, including
Davidson’s saltscale, smooth tarplant, Parry’s spineflower, long‐spined spineflower, vernal
barley, Coulter’s goldfields and little mousetail do not have LTCV. These populations would not
require mitigation to comply with the MSHCP. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐44.)
A portion of the Preferred Alternative is located within the northwest portion of Cell 3291,
which is a component of Noncontiguous Habitat Block 7. Grassland habitat containing vernal
pools and little mousetail populations with LTCV are located within this Cell, adjacent to the
Project Impact Area (PIA). However, indirect impacts to hydrology that may impact these
resources would not occur based on the topography and observations of conditions in this
location during the wet season, which indicated that site drainage is from the south to the north.
No Project activity (direct impacts) would occur in the areas with vernal pools and LTCV little
mousetail populations, which are located upgradient from the PIA and work areas. As a result,
construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative are not expected to affect the
101
65
local hydrology that would affect the little mousetail populations with LTCV. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐
44.)
Smooth tarplant is the only CASSA 3 species that would be permanently and directly
impacted by the Preferred Alternative. The impacts to CASSA 3 plants suitable for long‐term
conservation value (LTCV) are limited to Criteria Cells 3683, 3584, and 3291. Within Criteria Cell
3683, there is 1 population consisting of 1,000 plants, within Criteria Cell 3584 there are 4
populations consisting of 884 plants, and within Criteria Cell 3291, there is 1 population with 60
plants (Figure 3.3‐26 of the final EIR/EIS). In addition to the direct impacts within Criteria Cell
3291, there are a total of 2 populations consisting of 50 plants that could be indirectly impacted.
Because these populations were identified within criteria cells within CASSA 3, they have LTCV.
A Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) for smooth tarplant
was prepared and approved to address and evaluate impacts and is included as Appendix M in
the final EIR/EIS. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐44.)
MSHCP Covered Species and/or Planning Species:
The Project will potentially permanently impact 4.8 ac of habitat occupied by the Los
Angeles pocket mouse just east of the existing SR 79 alignment, north of Ramona Expressway
and south of the San Jacinto River. This Los Angeles pocket mouse population is part of the
regionally important core population within and near the San Jacinto River and Massacre Canyon
wash. Permanent impacts would include direct impacts to 2.6 ac and indirect impacts to 2.2 ac
of occupied habitat. The Project could also have permanent direct and indirect impacts to the
Los Angeles pocket mouse itself. Direct impacts would include the loss of grassland, sage scrub,
and alluvial fan scrub habitats. Indirect impacts to the population of Los Angeles pocket mouse
in the indirect impact area north of the Project could include degraded habitat due to increased
vehicle noise, vibration, lights from vehicles, dispersing Los Angeles pocket mice being struck by
vehicles, and long‐term effects of habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation could decrease
gene flow in the species and could increase the number of subpopulations through isolation.
Populations that were once continuous could become divided into separate fragments, forming
small islands isolated from one another. Subsequently, local extirpations and genetic inbreeding
could result. Additionally, the Project would have permanent direct and indirect impacts to the
southern portion of Criteria Area Cell 2364, where occupied habitat and Los Angeles pocket mice
were observed. However, the Project would not preclude the goals of this Criteria Area Cell. (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐48 and 4‐51.)
Temporary impacts to occupied Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat that may occur as
result of the Project include degradation of habitat quality and suitability because of
construction‐related noise, lights, vibration, dust, and soil compaction along the ROW and routes
for staging and access. Los Angeles pocket mice may be subject to mortality and injury from
being struck by construction vehicles and equipment traveling along access dirt roads and staging
areas. Although construction is temporary, the effects can be long‐term disruptions to the
species because Los Angeles pocket mice are rather short‐lived and are very sensitive to
disturbances in their environment. Due to the small size of the Los Angeles pocket mouse and
its very specific metabolic requirements, this species is only able to be active within a very narrow
102
66
range of temperatures. While active, they require a relatively high intake of calories to maintain
their body temperature and activity patterns and avoid going into torpor. Vibration and noise
from construction may disrupt the sleeping and aestivating patterns of the Los Angeles pocket
mouse. Some individuals may leave the immediate Project area during the construction process
because of noise and vibration. Los Angeles pocket mouse survival often depends on using acute
hearing to detect approaching predators in the dark. In addition, increased trash and discarded
food items from construction contractors may attract predators of the Los Angeles pocket mouse
to the area. Therefore, the Project could have long‐term impacts on Los Angeles pocket mouse
breeding, foraging, movement, hibernation/sleeping patterns, dispersal, and predator avoidance
behavior. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐56 and 4‐57.)
Five pairs of burrowing owls would be permanently impacted by the Preferred
Alternative. Of these, one pair would be directly impacted (RIV‐BUO‐023, 2006 nest). A total of
23.54 ac of quality habitat and 143.96 ac of suitable quality habitat would be directly impacted.
The remaining four pairs of burrowing owls would be indirectly impacted. Locations include RIV‐
BUO‐005, 732 ft from centerline, RIV‐BUO‐006, 663 ft from centerline, RIV‐BUO‐024, 666 ft from
centerline, and RIV‐BUO‐052, 299 ft from centerline. Although operational roadway noise would
be higher than the wildlife noise threshold for all four pairs within the indirect impact area,
operational roadway noise would still be within the range of existing ambient noise levels for
three of the four pairs within the indirect impact area (RIV‐BUO005, RIV‐BUO‐006, and RIV‐BUO‐
052). Although roadway noise may not impact these nest locations, other indirect impacts such
as habitat fragmentation or increased mortality from collisions with vehicles could still affect
these sites. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐52.)
No MSHCP‐covered nesting raptors would be directly impacted by the Preferred
Alternative. However, two pairs of white‐tailed kites would be indirectly impacted by operational
roadway noise, habitat fragmentation, or increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. The
white‐tailed kites are located approximately 827 ft and 190 ft from centerline. Operational
roadway noise at the kite nest located 827 ft from centerline would not be higher than the wildlife
noise threshold. In fact, roadway noise at this location would still be within the range of existing
ambient noise levels measured in the vicinity. Although roadway noise may not impact this nest
location, other indirect impacts such as habitat fragmentation could still affect this site.
Operational roadway noise at the kite nest located 190 ft from centerline would be higher than
the wildlife noise threshold and higher than the range of existing ambient noise levels measured
in the vicinity. Therefore, this nest is expected to be indirectly impacted by operational roadway
noise and/or habitat fragmentation. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐52.)
Temporary impacts to burrowing owls and nesting raptors may include construction
noise, night lighting, and increased human presence (construction personnel). Temporary
construction noise may affect burrowing owls and raptors because birds primarily communicate
with one another through vocalizations and auditory cues. Increased noise levels can interfere
with normal communication. Therefore, background noise and isolated, impulsive noise (e.g.,
drilling, excavation) can interfere with contact between mated birds, warning and distress calls
that signify predators and other threats, feeding behavior, and protection of the young. In
103
67
addition, high noise levels may keep an area that is otherwise appropriate for nesting from being
suitable. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐57.)
Four pairs of burrowing owls, RIV‐BUO‐005 located 446 ft from the PIA, RIV‐BUO‐006
located 420 ft from the PIA, RIV‐BUO‐024 located 78 ft from the PIA, and RIV‐BUO‐052, 46 ft from
the PIA, could be temporarily impacted by construction of the Preferred Alternative. Temporary
impacts to these four pairs of burrowing owls could include construction noise, night lighting, or
increased human presence. Temporary impacts due to construction noise would differ based on
the construction phase and associated work activities. However, for all phases of active
construction listed in Table 3.3‐16 of the final EIR/EIS, construction noise levels would be higher
than the wildlife noise threshold as well as the range of existing ambient noise in the general
vicinity. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐61.)
Two pairs of white‐tailed kites located 325 ft from the PIA and 36 ft from the PIA, could
be temporarily impacted by construction of the Preferred Alternative. Temporary impacts to
these two pairs of white‐tailed kites could include construction noise, night lighting, or increased
human presence. Temporary impacts due to construction noise would differ based on the
construction phase and associated work activities. However, for all phases of active construction
listed in Table 3.3‐17 in the final EIR/EIS, construction noise levels would be higher than the
wildlife noise threshold as well as the range of existing ambient noise in the general vicinity. (final
EIR/EIS. P. 4‐61
The 500‐ft buffer used to assess permanent indirect impacts for burrowing owls and
nesting raptors was used to analyze temporary indirect impacts from construction noise, night
lighting, and increased human presence. Night lighting and increased human presence during
construction can affect normal foraging patterns for burrowing owls and raptors. Although
construction activities would be located entirely within the PIA and would not extend into the
indirect impact area for burrowing owls or nesting raptors, the amount of construction activity,
equipment, and increased human presence for the 39 or 40 month construction period could still
affect daily behavior for these species. The potential for impacts would vary throughout the
construction period, but the beginning and middle stages, when construction activities and
numbers of personnel would peak, would be most likely to have the most effect. The potential
for impacts would decrease as construction winds down, and activities and personnel would be
minimal. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐57.)
Roadway excavation would take place in the West Hemet Hills for the Project . However,
the low frequency impulsive noise from blasting has the potential to affect species within a 1.0
mi radius, so the potential for startle effects could extend into the valley. Roadway overpasses
and bridges would be required with the Project, but not all of these structures would require pile
driving. However, the structures that would require pile driving will not be determined until final
design, so to include all potential impacts to burrowing owls and nesting raptors, this
construction noise impact analysis assumes that every roadway overpass and bridge would
require pile driving. Construction noise levels were based on the distance of the resource from
the PIA. Existing ambient noise levels were taken from monitoring locations and were compared
104
68
to future roadway noise levels that were calculated using the Federal Federal Highway
Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM) (FHWA 2004). Reference noise levels of 98
decibels (dB) were used for general roadway and 105 dB for structure construction. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 4‐57.)
To take a conservative approach and account for the loudest possible construction
activity, both reference noise levels represent the loudest noise level for that activity (e.g., noises
associated with dump trucks and pile driving). Construction noise calculations were based on the
reference numbers and a standard attenuation formula. Although a reference noise level of 95
dBA is listed for substantial excavation, the resulting construction noise for excavation (e.g.,
blasting) has been left blank (N/A) because this number depends on variables such as amount of
detonation material and blasting method that cannot be determined until construction.
Therefore, it is assumed that all resources within a 1.0‐mi radius of blasting will be temporarily
impacted by excavation activities and that the radius includes the Preferred Alternative.
Construction noise for burrowing owls and nesting raptors located in the indirect impact area is
shown in Tables 3.3‐16 and 3.3‐17 of the final EIR/EIS, respectively. (final EIR/EIS< p. 4‐58.)
Animal Species Not Covered by the MSHCP:
Nine pairs of nesting raptors could be permanently impacted by the Preferred Alternative.
Of these, one pair of barn owls and four pairs of red‐tailed hawks would be directly impacted by
the Preferred Alternative. A total of 299.75 ac of raptor foraging habitat would be directly
impacted. The remaining four pairs of nesting raptors could be indirectly impacted by roadway
noise, habitat fragmentation, or increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. Locations
include one pair of barn owls 771 ft from centerline and three pairs of red‐tailed hawks located
440 ft, 289 ft, and 1,135 ft from centerline. Operational roadway noise at all four nest locations
in the indirect impact area would be higher than the wildlife noise threshold. However,
operational roadway noise at the red‐tailed hawk nest located 440 ft from centerline would still
be within the range of existing ambient noise levels measured in the vicinity. Although roadway
noise may not impact this nest location, other indirect impacts such as habitat fragmentation
could still affect this site. Operational roadway noise at the remaining three nest locations would
be higher than the range of existing ambient noise levels measured in the vicinity. Therefore,
these sites are expected to be indirectly impacted by operational roadway noise, habitat
fragmentation, and/or increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐52
and 4‐53.)
Four pairs of raptors including one barn owl located 207 ft from the PIA, and three red‐
tailed hawks located 16 ft from the PIA, 148 ft from the PIA, and 13 ft from the PIA, could be
temporarily impacted by construction of the Preferred Alternative. Temporary impacts to these
four pairs of nesting raptors could include construction noise, night lighting, or increased human
presence. Temporary impacts due to construction noise would differ based on the construction
phase and associated work activities. However, for all phases of active construction listed in Table
3.3‐17, construction noise levels would be higher than the wildlife noise threshold as well as the
range of existing ambient noise in the general vicinity
105
69
Removal of rock outcrops would permanently reduce available roosting habitat for bat
species that are dependent on this limited resource. Additional permanent impacts to roosting
habitat would also include removal of mature trees that may offer tree roots for sensitive bat
species. Established building roosts could also be permanently impacted by the demolition of
man‐made structures. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐49 and 4‐53.) Temporary impacts to bats from the
Project could include disturbances to roost sites and disruptions of foraging areas due to
increased vehicular traffic, night illumination, pile driving for bridges, tree cutting, building
demolition, grubbing, and other construction‐related noise, as well as blasting, drilling, rock
hammering, and grading in areas with rock outcrops or hills. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐58.)
Threatened and Endangered Species:
The Preferred Alternative could permanently impact 491.1 ac of Stephens’ kangaroo rat
habitat. Permanent direct impacts to occupied habitat would be 182.3 ac, and indirect impacts
would be 308.8 ac. The Preferred Alternative could temporarily impact 308.8 ac of Stephens’
kangaroo rat habitat. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐53 and 4‐61.)
The Preferred Alternative could permanently impact 562.27 ac of Quino checkerspot
butterfly habitat. About 375.36 ac of suitable Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat would be
directly impacted by the Project, and about 186.91 ac could be indirectly impacted. Build
Alternative 1br could temporarily impact 186.91 ac of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐53 and 4‐61.)
The Preferred Alternative could permanently impact 111.19 ac of coastal California
gnatcatcher habitat. About 72.68 ac of suitable coastal California gnatcatcher habitat would be
directly impacted by the Project, and about 38.51 ac could be indirectly impacted. Build
Alternative 1br could temporarily impact 38.51 ac of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 4‐53 and 4‐61.)
Temporary impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat, quino checkerspot butterfly, and
coastal California gnatcatcher could include construction‐related noise, lights, dust, and
vibration. Increased mortality and injury from being struck by construction vehicles may also
occur. In addition, increased trash and discarded food items from construction personnel may
attract predators of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐58.)
The study area for the Preferred Alternative only includes the small population (22 plants)
of San Jacinto Valley Crownscale located in Additional Indirect Impact Study Area 2 (Figure 2.5‐4
of the final EIR/EIS). These populations are not in an MSHCP Criteria Area Cell and do not have
long‐term conservation value. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐742.)
No listed vernal pool branchiopods were observed in the study area for the Preferred
Alternative, but 28 pools were identified as potential habitat. The pools include tire ruts and
roadside drainages, man‐made depressions, depressions in active agricultural fields, and vernal
pools. All 28 pools received two surveys, either two wet season surveys or both a wet and dry
season survey. The only vernal pool branchiopod species observed in the study area for the
106
70
Preferred Alternative was the non‐listed versatile fairy shrimp which was observed in 16 pools
(Figure 2.5‐5 of the final EIR/EIS). No vernal pool branchiopods were observed in the other 12
pools. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐742.)
Least Bell’s Vireo were not observed in the study area for the Preferred Alternative, but
41.58 ac of suitable habitat was identified. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐742.)
A migrant willow flycatcher was detected 422 feet east of the PIA for the Preferred
Alternative (Roadway Segment M). However, no mate was seen, and no nesting behavior was
observed, so this individual was determined to be a migrant. About 41.58 ac of potential habitat
was identified. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐742.)
Findings: The mitigation measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on sensitive or special status species to below a level of significance. The mitigation
measures reflect changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which would lessen the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below
a level of significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of avoidance, minimization and, mitigation
Measures BIO‐1, BIO‐2, BIO‐14, BIO‐27, BIO‐32, BIO‐34 through BIO‐46 in the MMRP in Exhibit A
would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related to sensitive or special
status species as follows:
BIO‐1: Landscaping Plans.
BIO‐2: Avoid the Use of Invasive and Non‐Native Plants.
BIO‐14: Night Lighting.
BIO‐27: Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing.
BIO‐32: Modification of the Project Design to Construct a Gravity‐Based Surface Water
Diversion System.
BIO‐34: Avoidance of Sensitive Plant Populations.
BIO‐35: Avoid the Spread of Invasive Plant Species.
BIO‐36: Mitigation for Robinson’s Peppergrass Populations.
BIO‐37: Coulter’s Goldfields and Smooth Tarplant Populations.
BIO‐38: Culvert/Drainage System for Coulter’s Goldfields and Smooth Tarplant
Populations.
BIO‐39: Conduct Presence/Absence Surveys Immediately Prior to Construction Each Year.
BIO‐40: Relocation of Burrowing Owls.
BIO‐41: Maintenance of Hydrology to Existing Vernal Pool/Alkali Playa Habitat.
107
71
BIO‐42: Conducting Vegetation Clearance to Avoid Active Breeding Season (February 15
through September 15).
BIO‐43: Nesting Raptor Surveys and Implementation of Nest Exclusion.
BIO‐44: Inspections for Roosting Bats before Demolition.
BIO‐45: Installation of Bat‐Friendly Gate on Mine Adit Adjacent to Roadway Segments A,
B, and C.
BIO‐46: Provision of Suitable Habitat for Vegetation‐Roosting Bats.
Rationale: Although some of the Project impacts on sensitive or special status species can
be mitigated, impacts will still be significant and unavoidable.
2. Wetlands: As discussed in Section 3.3.2 Wetlands and Other Waters and 4.2.3.3
Biological Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐568 and 4‐42, respectively), permanent impacts for the
Preferred Alternative with refinements are 9.42 ac of agricultural seasonal wetlands, 0.09 acres
of erosional drainages, 1.35 ac of constructed ponds, and 4.43 ac of drainage ditches. Permanent
impacts for the Preferred Alternative to MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat (tamarisk, cottonwood,
willows) would equal 5.27 ac, while permanent impacts to vernal pool habitat, located near
Esplanade Avenue and Warren Road (VP 0109, VP 0110, VP 0111), would equal 2.0 ac. (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐580 and 4‐65.)
Temporary impacts for the Preferred Alternative are a maximum of 2.77 ac of the Salt
Creek Channel and up to 0.72 ac of the Hemet Channel could be temporarily
impacted during construction. Temporary impacts for the Preferred Alternative would occur to
Salt Creek Channel and Hemet Channel, which are both riverine resources. The amount of
riverine habitat that could be temporarily impacted during construction would equal 3.48 ac.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐582.)
Findings: The avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures summarized below
would not fully mitigate the Project impacts on wetlands to below a level of significance. The
mitigation measures reflect changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which would lessen the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not
to below a level of significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures WQ‐1, WQ‐4, WQ‐5, BIO‐28 through BIO‐33 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would only
partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related to wetlands as follows:
108
72
WQ‐1: Construction Best Management Practices in Compliance with Project Planning and
Design Guide (PPDG), Storm Water Management Plan (SWWP), Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Standard Special Provisions (SSP).
WQ‐4: Treatment BMPs.
WQ‐5: Dewatering Permit.
BIO‐27: Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing.
BIO‐28: Onsite and Offsite Drainage Faciltiies in the Project ROW.
BIO‐29: Maintenance kof Constructed Storm Water Systems.
BIO‐30: No Erodible Materials Deposited in Watercourses.
BIO‐31: Ongoing Monitoring and Reporting.
BIO‐32: Modification of the Project Design to Construct a Gravity‐Based Surface Water
Diversion System.
BIO‐33: Mitigation of Impacts to Water Features.
Rationale: Although some of the Project impacts on sensitive or special status species can
be mitigated, impacts will still be significant and unavoidable.
3. Wildlife Movement and Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites: As discussed
in Sections 3.3.1 Natural Communities and 4.2.3.3 Biological Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐3‐507
and 4‐42, respectively) a summary of impacts to wildlife movement is in Table 3.3‐3 of the final
EIR/EIS. Permanent direct impacts to wildlife movement would include blocking the existing
wildlife linkages or corridors, making these connective features unsuitable for use by one or more
wildlife movement categories. The lack of suitable crossings, such as culverts and bridges, could
force wildlife to seek other, potentially more dangerous crossings over the roadway or could
restrict home ranges or dispersal movements. This kind of restriction could increase the potential
for extirpation, or local extinction, over time. Blocking an existing linkage or corridor would be a
permanent direct impact and could affect Large Mammalian Wildlife, Small Mammalian, Reptile,
and Amphibian Wildlife, Insects, and Passive Dispersers. No permanent direct impacts to Avian
Wildlife movement are expected because local species in this category have the ability to fly over
the roadway if culvert and bridge crossings are not present or are not suitable. (final EIR/EIS, p.
4‐67.)
Permanent indirect impacts to wildlife movement would include alterations to the
existing wildlife linkages or corridors that decrease their effectiveness. For example, traffic noise
and artificial light could discourage wildlife from using the linkages or corridors, but would not
prohibit their use. Therefore, traffic noise and artificial light would be indirect impacts. Likewise,
in some areas, roadway operations could restrict wildlife crossings to only a few culverts and
bridges, which could constrain the existing linkage or corridor, but would not prohibit its use.
Such constraints because of roadway operations would also be considered indirect impacts.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐67.)
Except for Existing Constrained Linkage C (San Jacinto River), the wildlife movement
linkages and corridors described earlier would be permanently impacted by the Project. The
wildlife corridors trend east and west, and the Project would be aligned north and south, thus
109
73
would need to cross the corridors. These crossings would alter the corridors by placing man‐
made structures over them or through them. The kind of structure used at each crossing would
depend on the topography, the requirements of the roadway, and environmental considerations
such as drainage or historic preservation. Some crossings would be bridges, others would be on
embankment with culverts, and others would block the corridor entirely. Structures that would
enable wildlife to cross the roadway safely would be included throughout the Project. Figures
3.3‐11 through 3.3‐16 of the final EIR/EIS show the locations of linkages, corridors, and proposed
bridges and culverts. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐67.)
The Preferred Alternative would have permanent impacts on the following wildlife corridors it
crosses:
MSHCP Existing Constrained Linkage B (Salt Creek)
Newport Road Hills to Patton Road
Hemet Channel
San Jacinto Branch Line
Double Butte to West Hemet Hills
West Hemet Hills to Lakeview Mountains
Lakeview Mountains to Tres Cerritos Hills
Colorado River Aqueduct
Blocking an existing linkage or corridor would be a permanent direct impact and could
affect Large Mammalian Wildlife, Small Mammalian, Reptile, and Amphibian Wildlife, Insects,
and Passive Dispersers. No permanent direct impacts to Avian Wildlife movement are expected
because local species in this category have the ability to fly over the roadway if culvert and bridge
crossings are not present or are not suitable.
Findings: The avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures summarized below
would not fully mitigate the Project impacts on wildlife movement and corridors and native
wildlife nursery sites to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures reflect changes
or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which would lessen
the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below a level of significance. (State
CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures BIO‐11 through BIO‐26 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this
Project effect by reducing impacts related to wildlife movement and corridors and native wildlife
nursery sites as follows:
110
74
BIO‐11: Bridge over Salt Creek Channel.
BIO‐12: Avoidance of San Jacinto River.
BIO‐13: Avoidance of Existing Constrained Linkage C.
BIO‐14: Night Lighting.
BIO‐15: Crossing Structures and Spacing Intervals for a Variety of Species.
BIO‐16: Openings in K‐Rails for Small Animals.
BIO‐17: Wildlife Crossings Intended for Large Mammalian Wildlife.
BIO‐18: Use of Tree and Shrub Buffers Around Crossing Entrances, No Artificial Lighting.
BIO‐19: Wildlife Crossings Vegetated as Naturally as Possible.
BIO‐20: Use of Biodegradable Material in Erosion and Sediment Control Devices.
BIO‐21: Use of Natural Objects in the Crossing Facility.
BIO‐22: Installation of Vegetative Cover Near the Entrances to Culverts.
BIO‐23: Installation of Dirt, Rock, or Concrete Benches on at Least One Side of Large
Mammal Crossings.
BIO‐24: Wildlife Fencing.
BIO‐25: Installation of Jump‐Outs and Escape Ramps.
BIO‐26: Enhancements to Wildlife Corridors.
Rationale: Although some of the Project impacts on sensitive or special status species can
be mitigated, impacts will still be significant and unavoidable.
D. Environmental Factor: Cultural Resources
1. Historical, Archaeological (including tribal cultural resources), and
Paleontological Resources and Geologic Features: As discussed in Sections 3.1.8 Cultural
Resources and 4.2.3.4 Cultural Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐278 and 4‐82, respectively),
Caltrans has determined that implementation of the Project will result in an adverse effect on
the Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and the Potential Prehistoric Archaeological District
(PPAD). The TCP includes Chéexayam Pum’wáppivu (Seven Sisters), ‘Anó΄ Potma (Coyote’s
Moutth), and the intervening valley. The PPAD contains an unknown number of archaeological
resources beyond the Project APE, but includes the 24 BRMs/components identified in the APE
(final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐303.) Adverse effects have been resolved pursuant to Section 106 PA
Stipulation XI, and 36 CFR 800.6 through preparation of a MOA in consultation with consulting
parties; Caltrans and SHPO signed the MOA on March 25, 2016. The TCP and the PPAD meet the
definition of a protected Section 4(f) property and require additional consideration and
documentation that is presented in Appendix B of this document. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐280.)
Build Alternative 1br was designed to reduce direct impacts to the TCP by minimizing the
cut through ‘Anó΄ Potma (Coyote’s Mouth). Build AlternaƟve 1br proposes construcƟon of new
roadway and an access road to telecommunications facilities that would result in 141.1 ac of
ROW acquisition within the TCP and physical damage of 99.7 ac of the 2,908.3‐ac TCP, or 3.4
percent. Direct effects would occur at contributing features ‘Anó΄ Potma and the intervening
valley. At ‘Anó΄ Potma, the proposed cut would be limited to the northwestern slope where
approximately 29.7 ac would be removed, equivalent to approximately 6.3 percent of the hill.
111
75
The impact to ‘Anó΄ Potma caused by Build AlternaƟve 1br would significantly change the seƫ ng,
feeling, and character of the hill but would not diminish the integrity of its location or association
to the point that it no longer contributes to the significance of the TCP. Cut and fill would also
impact approximately 70.0 ac of the intervening valley (15.0 percent). Direct impacts to open
space within the intervening valley would change the setting and feeling of the valley but would
not diminish its integrity of location, feeling, or association. In addition, Build Alternative 1br
would introduce visual elements, such as elevated roadway and bridges, which would diminish
the integrity of the TCP’s contributing features. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐308.)
For Build Alternative 1br, direct effects to potential contributing elements of the PPAD
would result from the physical destruction of one bedrock milling component (CA‐RIV‐7885) and
physical damage to part of two bedrock milling component (CA‐RIV‐8141 and ‐8142). Build
Alternative 1br also would have the possibility of incurring indirect effect to the PPAD at 22
bedrock milling components (CA‐RIV‐5461, ‐5462, ‐5790, ‐5791, ‐5829/H, ‐6907/H, ‐7887, ‐7888,
‐7891, ‐7893,7894/H, ‐7907, ‐7908, ‐8140, ‐8141, ‐8142, ‐8143, ‐8146, ‐8147, ‐8148, ‐8156/H, ‐
8160, and ‐8169). (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐308.)
Findings: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on historical, archaeological (including tribal cultural resources), and paleontological
resources and geologic features to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures reflect
changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which would
lessen the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below a level of significance.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR‐1 through CR‐9 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related
to historical, archaeological (including tribal cultural resources), and paleontological resources
and geologic features as follows:
CR‐1: Cultural Materials Discovered during Construction.
CR‐2: Archaeological and Native American Monitoring.
CR‐3: Discovery of Human Remains.
CR‐4: Establishment of ESA.
CR‐5: Preparation of a Historic Context for the PPAD.
CR‐6: Spatial and Visual Analysis of Elements of the PPAD.
CR‐7: Photogrammetric Documentation of Elements of the PPAD.
CR‐8: Support for NRHP Nomination of the TCP.
CR‐9: Collaboration on Reports.
112
76
Rationale: Caltrans has determined that implementation the Project would result in an
adverse effect on the TCP and PPAD, by removing portions of those resources during construction
and creating adverse visual impacts to the remaining portions of those resources. Because all
potential impacts to historic properties would be caused by earthmoving or ground‐disturbing
activities, all impacts would be permanent. Although Mitigation Measures CR‐1 through CR‐9 are
expected to reduce the significant adverse impacts of the Project on the TCP and PPAD, the
Project would still have the potential to cause an adverse change in the significance of historical,
archaeological (including tribal cultural resources), and paleontological resources and geologic
features, resulting in a significant effect on the environment. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐86.)
2. Substantial Adverse Change in Significance of Historical Resource: As discussed
in Sections 3.1.8 Cultural Resources and 4.2.3.4 Cultural Resources (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐278 and
4‐82, respectively) as well as in Section IV(D)(1) above, Caltrans has determined that
implementation of the Project will result in an adverse effect on the Traditional Cultural Property
(TCP) and the Potential Prehistoric Archaeological District (PPAD). The TCP includes Chéexayam
Pum’wáppivu (Seven Sisters), ‘Anó΄ Potma (Coyote’s MouƩ h), and the intervening valley. The
PPAD contains an unknown number of archaeological resources beyond the Project APE, but
includes the 24 BRMs/components identified in the APE (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐303.)
Build Alternative 1br was designed to reduce direct impacts to the TCP by minimizing the
cut through ‘Anó΄ Potma (Coyote’s Mouth). Build Alternative 1br proposes construction of new
roadway and an access road to telecommunications facilities that would result in 141.1 ac of
ROW acquisition within the TCP and physical damage of 99.7 ac of the 2,908.3‐ac TCP, or 3.4
percent. Direct effects would occur at contributing features ‘Anó΄ Potma and the intervening
valley. At ‘Anó΄ Potma, the proposed cut would be limited to the northwestern slope where
approximately 29.7 ac would be removed, equivalent to approximately 6.3 percent of the hill.
The impact to ‘Anó΄ Potma caused by Build AlternaƟve 1br would significantly change the setting,
feeling, and character of the hill but would not diminish the integrity of its location or association
to the point that it no longer contributes to the significance of the TCP. Cut and fill would also
impact approximately 70.0 ac of the intervening valley (15.0 percent). Direct impacts to open
space within the intervening valley would change the setting and feeling of the valley but would
not diminish its integrity of location, feeling, or association. In addition, Build Alternative 1br
would introduce visual elements, such as elevated roadway and bridges, which would diminish
the integrity of the TCP’s contributing features. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐308.)
For Build Alternative 1br, direct effects to potential contributing elements of the PPAD
would result from the physical destruction of one bedrock milling component (CA‐RIV‐7885) and
physical damage to part of two bedrock milling component (CA‐RIV‐8141 and ‐8142). Build
Alternative 1br also would have the possibility of incurring indirect effect to the PPAD at 22
bedrock milling components (CA‐RIV‐5461, ‐5462, ‐5790, ‐5791, ‐5829/H, ‐6907/H, ‐7887, ‐7888,
‐7891, ‐7893,7894/H, ‐7907, ‐7908, ‐8140, ‐8141, ‐8142, ‐8143, ‐8146, ‐8147, ‐8148, ‐8156/H, ‐
8160, and ‐8169). (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐308.)
113
77
Findings: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on substantial adverse change in significance of historical resource to below a level of
significance. The mitigation measures reflect changes or alterations that have been required in,
or incorporated into, the Project which would lessen the project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS but not to below a level of significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR‐1 through CR‐9 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related
to substantial adverse change in significance of historical resource as follows:
CR‐1: Cultural Materials Discovered during Construction.
CR‐2: Archaeological and Native American Monitoring.
CR‐3: Discovery of Human Remains.
CR‐4: Establishment of ESA.
CR‐5: Preparation of a Historic Context for the PPAD.
CR‐6: Spatial and Visual Analysis of Elements of the PPAD.
CR‐7: Photogrammetric Documentation of Elements of the PPAD.
CR‐8: Support for NRHP Nomination of the TCP.
CR‐9: Collaboration on Reports.
Rationale: Caltrans has determined that implementation the Project would result in an
adverse effect on the TCP and PPAD, by removing portions of those resources during construction
and creating adverse visual impacts to the remaining portions of those resources. Because all
potential impacts to historic properties would be caused by earthmoving or ground‐disturbing
activities, all impacts would be permanent. Although Mitigation Measures CR‐1 through CR‐9 are
expected to reduce the significant adverse impacts of the Project on the TCP and PPAD, the
Project would still have the potential to cause an adverse change in the significance of these
historical resources, resulting in a significant effect on the environment. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐86.)
Build Alternative 1br was designed specifically to reduce direct impacts to historical resources, in
accordance with CEQA guidance (Section 15126.4), to achieve the preferred mitigation option of
preserving historical resources in place. Redesign of Build Alternative reduced direct impacts to
the TCP and minimized destruction of bedrock milling components that contribute to the PPAD.
Further, in an effort to avoid, mitigate, and minimize impacts to historical resources, measures
CR‐1 through CR‐9 are presented in Section 3.1.8.4 and the ECR (Appendix E). Caltrans is
continuing to consult to resolve adverse effects pursuant to Section 106 PA Stipulation XI, and 35
CFR 800.6 through preparation of an MOA in consultation with consulting parties. Specific
measures to resolve adverse effects to historic properties in the Preferred Alternative developed
in the MOA will be included in the final EIR/EIS and CEQA Checklist to address significant impacts
114
78
to historical resources. At a minimum, these would include protection through the establishment
of ESAs, archaeological and Native American monitoring, treatment to mitigate impacts to the
PPAD (such as additional research and management planning for bedrock milling components),
actions to mitigate impacts to the TCP (such as preparation of a National Register nomination);
and analysis, reporting, and curation (if necessary). Although these mitigation measures CR‐1
through CR‐9 are expected to reduce the significant adverse impacts of the Project on the TCP
and PPAD, the Preferred Alternative would still have the potential to cause an adverse change in
the significance of these historical resources, and this would results in a significant effect on the
environment. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐86.)
E. Environmental Factor: Noise and Vibration
1. Noise Standard: As discussed in Sections 3.2.7 Noise, 4.2.2.7 Noise and Vibration,
and 4.2.3.6 Noise and Vibration (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐436, 4‐26, and 4‐87 respectively), noise levels
generated by construction activities and machinery during construction of the Project could
exceed the local restrictions. Construction Noise Regulations for the Project include the
following:
State of California
Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14‐8.02, Noise Control, establishes a noise level
limit of 86 A‐weighted decibels (dBA) at 50 ft from construction activities from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. The Standard Specifications require use of an alternative warning method for moving
equipment instead of a sound signal unless required by safety laws. The provisions also require
that an internal combustion engine be equipped with the manufacturer‐recommended muffler
and prohibit operation of an internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate
muffler. Standard Special Provisions S5‐310 of Caltrans construction contract standards include
prescribed language to be used for construction contracts to allow certain construction activities
that may exceed the 86 dBA limit, such as pile driving, concrete removal, and certain pavement
work, and define the time limits for such activities. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐438.)
County of Riverside
County of Riverside Noise Ordinance No. 847, which regulates noise, establishes exterior
noise level limits for various land use categories. The ordinance, however, exempts capital
improvement projects that are funded by governmental agencies from these provisions. The
Project qualifies as a “capital improvement project” funded by governmental agencies, RCTC and
FHWA; thus the Project is exempt from the provisions of the County of Riverside Noise Ordinance
No. 847. Further, construction noise must follow County of Riverside Noise Ordinance No. 457
of February 1999, which states that whenever a construction site is within 0.25 mi of an occupied
residence or residences, no construction activities shall be undertaken between 6:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. from June through September and between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. from October
through May. Exceptions to these standards shall be allowed only with the written consent of
the County building official. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐438.)
City of Hemet
115
79
City of Hemet Ordinance No. 1620 of April 2000 addresses public nuisances caused by
construction activities. Construction activities are limited to 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from June
through September and between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from October through May. Saturday
construction is permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and Sunday construction is
prohibited. Exceptions to these standards may be granted only by the City building official and/or
the city council. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐439.)
City of San Jacinto
The City of San Jacinto Municipal Code (2005) restricts construction activities, whether on
private property or within the public right‐of‐way, between 7:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m.
of the following day and at any time on Sunday. Emergency construction activities or emergency
repairs resulting from an unforeseen occurrence are specifically exempt from the provisions of
the Municipal Code. Construction equipment includes, but is not limited to, trucks, road graders,
tractors, power saws, power drills, and generators. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐439.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on noise standard to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures reflect
changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which would
lessen the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below a level of significance.
. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NO‐1 and NO‐2 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related
to noise standard as follows:
NO‐1: Installation of Recommended Noise Barriers Shown to be Feasible and Reasonable.
NO‐2: Observation of Time Restrictions and Use of Alternative Alarms.
Rationale: Noise levels generated by construction and operational activities would be
expected to exceed the significance threshold. While compliance with existing noise control
ordinances along with mitigation measures NO‐1 and NO‐2 would reduce noise standard impacts
below a level of significance in most locations, there will be a number of noise standard impacts
to locations in Hemet and San Jacinto that are significant and unavoidable. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐
87.)
2. Permanent Noise Increase: As discussed in Sections 3.2.7 Noise, 4.2.2.7 Noise and
Vibration, and 4.2.3.6 Noise and Vibration (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐436, 4‐26, and 4‐87 respectively),
Alternative 1br would realign SR 79 through corridors where there is currently no highway noise
116
80
source. Consequently, traffic noise impacts were analyzed per Caltrans Noise protocol. Under
CEQA, the assessment entails evaluating the setting of the noise impact, then estimating how
large or perceptible any noise increase would be in the area. Key considerations include the
uniqueness of the setting, the sensitive nature of the noise receivers, the magnitude of the noise
increase, the number of residences affected, and the absolute noise level. As expected, the
addition of a new highway would result in increases in ambient noise levels at many of the noise‐
sensitive locations along the Project. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐26 and 4‐27.)
The most effective noise abatement technique for this Project is the construction of noise
barriers. Using the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, noise barriers were studied at the
sensitive receivers that would approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC) or would
experience substantial increases above existing noise levels due to the Project impacts. For
abatement measures to be incorporated into the Project, they must be both feasible and
reasonable. Feasibility of noise abatement is an engineering concern. A minimum 5‐dBA
reduction in the future noise level must be achieved for an abatement measure to be considered
feasible. Other considerations include topography, access requirements, other noise sources,
and safety. Once a modeled noise barrier was shown to be feasible (that it would achieve the
minimum 5‐dBA reduction at a given receiver), the reasonableness of that barrier was also
determined. To determine whether a noise barrier would be reasonable, the total cost allowance
is calculated and then compared to the total estimated cost of the barrier. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐
27.)
The preliminary noise abatement recommendations are based on the Noise Study Report
(NSR) of July 2010, the Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) of July 2010, the Technical
Report Addendum Memorandum (NSR TRAM), and the Supplemental Noise Study Report and
Noise Abatement Decision Report (February 2015). The NSR investigated existing conditions, the
potential for noise impacts, the appropriate type of mitigation for this Project, the potential for
acoustically feasible mitigation, and the reasonable allowance for mitigation. To develop noise
barrier recommendations, the NADR was produced. The noise abatement decisions in the NADR
were based on the NSR, the cost estimates for the NSR barriers, and the optimization of those
barriers with NSR reasonable allowances and cost estimates that could be modified to create a
feasible and reasonable barrier. The optimization process refers to evaluating barrier heights
and lengths to achieve the most practical barrier possible. Following the completion of the
studies for the NSR/NADR, additional design options were developed. These design options were
evaluated in the NSR TRAM. Using this process, 22 barriers were recommended for further
consideration:
• Noise Barriers 1A‐E1 and 2A‐F1
• Noise Barriers 1A‐G1/1B‐G2 and 2A‐H1/2B‐H1
• Noise Barriers 1A‐L3/2A‐L3
• Noise Barriers 1A‐J2/2B‐J2 and 1B‐K3/2A‐K3
• Noise Barriers 1B‐M3/2B‐M3 and 1A‐L2/2A‐L2
• Noise Barriers 1B‐M4/2B‐M4
• Noise Barriers 1B‐N1/2B‐N1
117
81
• Noise Barriers 1B‐N2/2B‐N2
The CEQA noise analysis is independent of the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
The appropriate CEQA noise threshold is the Caltrans definition for “substantial” – an increase in
noise levels of 12 A‐weighted decibels (dBA) or more above existing noise levels. Whether the
substantial increase would result in a significant adverse effect is determined based on the
context and intensity of the substantial noise increase, by comparing the existing noise level to
the predicted noise level with the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐27.)
Overall, the increases in traffic noise levels associated with the Project are considered to
be substantial and would, therefore, result in significant permanent noise impacts. For mitigation
under CEQA, each group of sensitive receivers was evaluated to determine whether mitigation is
warranted. If a substantial increase in noise level (12 dBA above existing noise levels) was
predicted, mitigation was considered. If any of the following metrics were present, CEQA‐specific
mitigation was not considered to be reasonable:
• A noise barrier is recommended for further consideration under the Caltrans Traffic
Noise Analysis Protocol.
• Proposed planned residential developments.
• One or two affected dwelling units exist in the area.
• The affected dwelling units are in commercial or agricultural areas.
• The affected dwelling units are exposed to other substantial traffic noise sources.
Based on the CEQA evaluation, the only additional noise barrier recommended is for the
area associated with the private campground located in the southwestern quadrant of the
Cottonwood Avenue/Warren Road intersection. Known as Reflection Lake or Cottonwood Lake,
this is a private campground with recreational‐vehicle storage and day‐use picnic areas. Tent
campers and recreational vehicles surround a small pond. Long‐term residency may occur. Using
the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, a feasible and reasonable noise barrier could not be
proposed at this location. CEQA is not constrained by the Caltrans cost‐effectiveness criteria.
Under CEQA, the barriers at this location (Noise Barriers 1A‐JL1, 1B‐M2, 2A‐L1, and 2B‐M2)
warrant further consideration. A noise barrier at Reflection/Cottonwood Lake meets the metrics
for CEQA‐specific mitigation. The setting is a unique recreational facility. The campers are
considered sensitive noise receptors. The magnitude of the noise increase is large and the
number of affected users is substantial. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐28.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on permanent noise increase to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures
reflect changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
would lessen the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below a level of
significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
118
82
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure NO‐1 in the MMRP in
Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related to
permanent noise increase as follows:
NO‐1: Installation of Recommended Noise Barriers Shown to be Feasible and Reasonable.
Rationale: Six noise barriers, including 1B‐G2, 1B‐K3, 1B‐M3, 1B‐M4, 1B‐N1, and 1B‐N2,
are show to be feasible and reasonable under the Preferred Alternative. The noise barriers will
have average heights between 10 and 14 feet and a total length of 22,013 feet. Calculations
indicate that these noise barriers will substantially reduce noise levels in some, but not all sites.
CEQA mitigation for the remainder of the significantly impacted sites without barrier
recommendations were determined not to satisfy CEQA criteria. Therefore, the Project will result
in significant and unavoidable noise impacts to these sites:
IB‐C1, 1B‐C2, 1B‐I1, 1B‐K2, and 1B‐K4
(final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐482, 3‐483, and 4‐87.)
3. Temporary Noise Increase: As discussed in Sections 3.2.7 Noise, 4.2.2.7 Noise and
Vibration, and 4.2.3.6 Noise and Vibration (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐436, 4‐26, and 4‐87 respectively),
the appropriate CEQA threshold for construction noise is the limit established by the Caltrans
Standard Specifications provision. Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 14‐8.02, Noise
Control, establishes a noise level limit of 86 dBA at 50 feet from construction activities from 9:00
p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Other standards exist. For example, there are provisions established by
Riverside County, Hemet, and San Jacinto. These other construction noise provisions are similar
to the Caltrans provision. For consistency, the Caltrans Standard Specifications provision is the
appropriate threshold. (final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐35.)
Noise levels generated by construction activities and machinery during the construction
phases of the Project would be expected to exceed the 86‐dBA significance threshold. Two types
of construction noise impacts are expected during construction. First, construction crews will
move equipment and materials to the construction site. This would incrementally increase noise
levels on roads leading to the site. A relatively high level of exposure can be expected (i.e., up to
87 maximum sound level [Lmax] dBA at 50 feet) from passing trucks. The second type of
construction noise is generated during excavation, grading, and building operations.
Construction involves a variety of equipment and, consequently, a variety of noise
characteristics. Typical noise levels range up to 91 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest
construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the
site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because of the prevalence of earthmoving
equipment. The highest volumes will be intermittent because the typical operating cycle for this
119
83
type of equipment involves full‐power operation followed by periods of lower power operation.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐35.)
Finding: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on temporary noise increase to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures
reflect changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
lessen the Project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below a level of significance.
(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NO‐1 through NO‐5 in the
MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing impacts related
to temporary noise increase as follows:
NO‐1: Installation of Recommended Noise Barriers Shown to be Feasible and Reasonable.
NO‐2: Observation of Time Restrictions and Use of Alternative Alarms.
NO‐3: Use Mufflers on Equipment with Internal Combustion Engines.
NO‐4: Placement of Stationary Equipment.
NO‐5: Construction Equipment Staging.
Rationale: Compliance with existing noise control ordinances would reduce construction
noise impacts in some, but not all locations. The noise control policies for the Project’s
construction activities include:
• Minimization of high‐noise construction equipment adjacent to sensitive land uses
• Establishment of hours of operation
• Use of current noise suppression technology and equipment
• Location of noise equipment away from sensitive receptors
• Use of temporary noise attenuation fences, when applicable
• Route construction traffic to minimize disruption to residences and existing operations
• Construction scheduling limitations should depend on the sensitivity of the affected
receptors
(final EIR/EIS, p. 4‐35.)
To decrease the overall Project construction schedule and to help reduce Project costs, some
Project construction activities would be required outside the hours designated by each local
jurisdiction. Construction work is planned to occur for 39 months, with two 12‐hour shifts for 5
120
84
days per week. Because some of these activities may exceed local noise‐level standards and/or
designated work‐activity timeframes, specific requests would be made to each jurisdiction, as
needed, to obtain noise variances from ordinances that limit construction hours.
The control of noise from construction activities will conform to the provisions of the Caltrans
Standard Specifications in Section 14‐8.02, Noise Control, and Section S5‐310 of the Special
Provisions.
The Standard Specifications Provisions used are quoted below:
• Do not exceed 86 dBA at 50 feet from the job site activities from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. Use
an alternative warning method instead of a sound signal unless required by safety laws.
• Equip an internal combustion engine with the manufacturer recommended muffler. Do
not operate an internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate
muffler.
As noted above, the barriers listed were determined to be both feasible and reasonable
and are, therefore, recommended for further consideration. Also, as stated above, control of
noise from construction activities will conform to the provisions of the Caltrans Standard
Specifications in Section 14‐8.02, Noise Control and Section S5‐ 310 of the Special Provisions.
Caltrans standards provisions for noise abatement during construction will be included within
the project provisions, reducing construction‐related noise impacts to a level below significance
in some, but not all locations. Therefore the Project will result in significant and unavoidable
impacts to temporary noise increase. (final EIR/EIS, p.3‐482 through 3‐486, 4‐87.)
F. Environmental Factor: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Hazardous Materials near Schools: As discussed in Sections 3.2.5 Hazardous
Waste/Materials and 4.2.3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐382 and 4‐
86, respectively, Winchester Elementary School is the closest school facility to the Project that
is within 0.25 mi of the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is for a transportation
project; therefore, it does not involve the potential for release of hazardous emissions or
handling of acutely hazardous materials. However, there is a potential that hazardous materials
may be encountered during the construction of the Project. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐86 and 4‐87.)
Findings: The Mitigation Measures summarized below would not fully mitigate the Project
impacts on hazardous materials near schools to below a level of significance. The mitigation
measures reflect changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which would lessen the project impact as identified in the final EIR/EIS but not to below
a level of significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
121
85
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZMAT‐1 through
HAZMAT‐5 in the MMRP in Exhibit A would only partially mitigate this Project effect by reducing
impacts related to substantial permanent, temporary, or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
as follows:
HAZMAT‐1: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
HAZMAT‐2: Aerially Deposited Lead Surveys.
HAZMAT‐3: Asbestos‐Containing Materials and Lead‐Based Paint Surveys.
HAZMAT‐4: Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan.
HAZMAT‐5: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.
Rationale: The exact types of material and the proximity to the school cannot be known
at this time and so the impact is assumed to be significant because of the possibility and the
sensitivity of the school. Mitigation measures HAZMAT‐1 through HAZMAT‐5 are proposed to
address the risk of hazardous materials releases. However the potential for significant impacts
cannot be fully eliminated and so the risk is considered significant and unavoidable.
122
86
SECTION V
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
project.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15065(a)(3).)
Section 3.6 Cumulative Impacts (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐779) assesses cumulative impacts for
each applicable environmental issue, and does so to a degree that reflects each impact’s severity
and likelihood of occurrence.
Notwithstanding the specific Project design features discussed in the final EIR/EIS for the
Project, and the measures and conditions set forth in the MMRP in Exhibit A for the Project, some
of the Project’s cumulative impacts discussed in this Section V cannot be fully mitigated to a less
than significant level. For each impact that is determined to be significant and unavoidable, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for that impact and is set forth in
Section X. The potential for the SR‐79 Realignment project to contribute to cumulative impacts
is evaluated in Section 3.6 and is summarized in this section for the following environmental
thresholds:
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gases
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise and Vibration
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
1. Cumulative Impacts that are Less Than Significant with Mitigation
123
87
A. Agricultural Resources: The vast majority of farmland in the San Jacinto Valley is
assumed to be converted to nonagricultural uses over time in the general plans that include the
Project area. Despite the consensus that development pressure will ultimately convert these
lands, the general plans include measures to minimize impacts to farmlands and encourage the
continued agricultural use of these lands. Although some measures can be implemented in
review of proposed development plans, many measures are implemented at the discretion of the
landowners. These include mitigation measures such as the establishment of setbacks and
buffers between development and agricultural areas in San Jacinto, and the encouragement of
compatibility with agricultural policies and programs in Riverside County and the City of Hemet.
The Project incorporates mitigation to address impacts, such as commitments to maintain access
to farm units, coordination with local service providers to maintain utilities such as water and
electricity, and measures to control noise and dust. Therefore, the Project would not contribute
considerably to cumulative impacts related to farmlands. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐793.)
B. Biological Resources: Impacts to wetlands and other waters would be offset
through creation, enhancement, and preservation of wetland areas as required by state and
federal laws and regulations. Impacts to threatened and endangered species will be handled
through a joint MSHCP Consistency Determination/Biological Opinion for the proposed Project.
The potential for other species not covered by the MSHCP to have cumulative impacts would be
reduced to less than significant levels by mitigation. The Project would incorporate specific
mitigation measures, such as preconstruction surveys and tree removal following confirmation
that nests are inactive, to address impacts to nesting and foraging raptors. The Project would
incorporate specific mitigation measures to improve bat roosting sites and habitat. The Project‐
specific mitigation would reduce the Project’s contribution to potential cumulative effects to less
than significant. Additionally, other projects with the potential to impact biological resources
would be expected to comply with the pertinent regulations and identify and implement
appropriate mitigation measures with the applicable resource agencies as warranted. Therefore,
the Project would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts related to biological
resources. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐784 through 3‐785; 3‐813 through 3‐820.)
C. Geology and Soils: Potential impacts for the proposed Project include surface
fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction susceptibility, compressible/collapsible soils, and
expansive soils. The location of the Project study area in relation to known active and potentially
active faults indicates that the alignments are not exposed to a greater seismic risk than other
sites in the region. The Project study area is located in areas considered moderately to highly
susceptible to liquefaction. The hills to the west and east of the Project may be subject to rock
fall, rock slides, and other rock slope failure. The Project would use standard engineering
practices to deal with these risks and would not result in adverse impacts to geology, soils,
seismic, or topography. Therefore, the Project would not contribute considerably to cumulative
impacts related to geology and soils. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐783.)
D. Greenhouse Gases. As discussed in Section 4.2.5 Climate Change (final EIR/EIS,
p. 4‐90), the Project would actually be beneficial to regional and local efforts to reduce GHG
emissions by achieving regional and subregional GHG emission reduction targets by reducing
124
88
traffic congestion, thus reducing vehicle exhaust emissions and implementing one of the projects
listed in the 2012‐ 2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS), which sets forth a transporation‐focused plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Ultimately, and even when considering construction emissions, GHG emissions that may occur
with the Project will be less than those that occur without the Project. Accordingly, any
environmental effect of the Project on GHG emissions will be beneficial, and no cumulatively
considerable adverse impact will occur.
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Potential risks of the proposed Project include
impacting agricultural parcels with a low to moderate potential for pesticide residue in soil;
buildings constructed prior to the 1980s that pose a low to moderate risk of lead‐based paint or
asbestos‐containing material; parcels within the current right of way of SR 79/Winchester Road,
SR 74/Florida Avenue, and Domenigoni Parkway have a low to moderate potential for aerially
deposited lead in soil; and schools are within 0.25 mi of the Preferred Alternative and may be
subject to hazardous materials during construction. Appropriate measures will be taken during
construction to minimize exposure. Therefore, the Project would not contribute considerably to
cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐783.)
F. Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project would encroach on floodplains, but
roadway design would comply with applicable FEMA regulations and policies to address
hydrology and flood risk. Impacts would be addressed through specific design and compliance
with applicable regulations and policies specific to hydrology and floodplain. The Project would
also incorporate measures to address water quality and storm flows, resulting in minimal change
to the capacity and quality of nearby water courses. Other projects would drain to the same
downstream water bodies as the proposed Project. However, these projects would also be
required through project‐specfic design and compliance to comply with the same storm water
and water quality regulations and policies that are applicable to the Project. Therefore, the
Project would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water
quality. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐782 and 3‐783.)
G. Land Use and Planning: The proposed Project has been closely coordinated with
the County of Riverside and the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto and is consistent with the
respective general plans and associated land use elements. Many of the undeveloped lands are
being developed consistent with the respective local jurisdictions’ general plan land use plans,
which designate areas for both land development and open space. Because of the consistency
with the general plans of the associated jurisdictions, the Project would not result in adverse
impacts to land use and planning. Therefore, the Project would not contribute considerably to
cumulative impacts related to land use and planning. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐781.)
H. Noise and Vibration: The Project would impact sensitive receptors with highway
noise, but mitigation measures are proposed to minimize the effects of noise and vibration to be
consistent with applicable policies and regulations. Those noise and vibration study also
considered the cumulative noise impacts to each sensitive receptor because the future land uses
and corresponding circulation element were included in this analysis. Therefore, the Project
125
89
would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts related to noise and vibration. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 3‐784.)
I. Population and Housing: When considering the relocations and displacements
required for the Project with both the SR 79 Widening Project and the Mid County Parkway
Project, the unincorporated area of Winchester and the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto have
adequate housing and commercial stock available that would satisfy the decent, safe, and
sanitary standards for relocating residents and businesses who are displaced by the Project. The
volume of currently available housing and commercial stock would also be expected to satisfy
relocation needs of other reasonably foreseeable projects and therefore would not result in a
population and housing cumulative impact. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 3‐794 and 3‐795.)
J. Public Services: Impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and
other public facilities will be mitigated to less than significant levels. Mitigation will reduce
impacts to traffic delays an detours that may impact fire and police response. Mitigation will also
reduce impacts to routes to schools, parks, daycares, retirement centers, hospitals, public service
facilities, and waste disposal facilities caused by detours. Therefore, the Project would not
contribute considerably to cumulative impacts related to public services. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 4‐36
and 4‐37.)
K. Recreational Facilities: As discussed at final EIR/EIS page 4‐38, and final EIR/EIS
Appendix A, Section XV(b), the nature of the Project is a transportation facility. It will not
introduce substantial numbers of new residents to the area that would increase the use of
existing parks or recreation facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of parks
or recreational facilities, nor will it impact existing parks or recreational facilities. Because the
Project will have no impact on recreational facilities, it likewise will not cause a cumulatively
considerable impacts on such facilities.
L. Transportation/Traffic: The full build out of the Project in 2040 would benefit the
transportation system because it would provide a more efficient north/south regional facility.
The Project would not result in adverse impacts to the transportation system, except for short‐
term disruption of intersecting roadways that require reconstruction or possibly adjacent roads
that serve as detour routes. Therefore, the Project would not contribute considerably to
cumulative impacts related to transportation/traffic. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐782.)
M. Utilities and Service Systems: Cable television, electricity, natural gas, sewer,
telephone, and water utilities could experience occasional disruption during construction of the
Preferred Alternative. As a result of mitigation measures being proposed to minimize these
impacts, the Project would not result in adverse impacts to utilities and service systems.
Therefore, the Project would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts related to
utilities and service systems. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐781.)
2. Cumulative Impacts that are Cumulatively Considerable
126
90
A. Aesthetics: Visual character and quality, as guided by the presence of
scenic elements in the cumulative impacts study area, were considered for the cumulative
analysis of visual/aesthetics in Section 3.6.3.3. The Project cumulative impacts study area
historically has been characterized by rural and agricultural areas. However, ongoing planning as
guided by the general plans for Riverside County and the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto indicates
a development movement to support anticipated future growth and change. Most noticeably,
this has resulted, and will continue to result, in the conversion of open space and agriculture to
more urban uses, such as housing developments and commercial centers.
The construction of the proposed Project would result in the substantial removal of
existing hillsides and creation of large and visually prominent cut slopes most evident in the West
Hemet Hills. In addition, fill slopes would be created on which much of the roadway would be
constructed. Along much of the route assumed in the Preferred Alternative, the roadway would
be located on berms approximately 5 ft in height. However, in places along all of the Project, the
berms would be considerably higher, rising to heights of 20 ft and more. The higher fill slopes
would alter the visual character of rural environments, blocking views toward more distant
elements of the landscape, and dominating the views from nearby areas. In addition, major
overcrossing structures would be constructed at several locations, both for the Project roadway
as it crosses over surface streets and for surface streets that cross over the Project roadway.
These structures have the potential to dominate views from nearby areas and to block views
toward more distant landscape features. The Project would substantially contribute to the
cumulative adverse impact to the visual and aesthetic characteristics of the San Jacinto Valley.
The San Jacinto Valley has been developed to include a variety land uses, which include
agricultural fields, dairy farms, equestrian estates, mobile home parks, and rural residences and
subdivisions set against rugged, undeveloped slopes. Infrastructure projects have also been
constructed, which include water conveyance and storage facilities (San Diego and Colorado
River Aqueducts, Diamond Valley Lake), airports (Hemet‐Ryan Airport), wastewater treatment
facilities (Eastern Municipal Water District Treatment Facility), and local roads (Florida Avenue,
Sanderson Avenue, Warren Road, and others) and expressways (Ramona Expressway,
Domenigoni Parkway).
The proposed Project would result in the conversion of open space, rural, and agricultural
areas to more urbanized development. As discussed in Section 3.1.7, the Project would also
contribute to a change in the visual character and quality by introducing a new major
transportation facility into a rural area in which this type of land use did not previously exist.
Green Acres residents would have close‐range views of Build Alternative 1br. Winchester
residents would have mid‐range views of all of the Project. The Project would be visible to
travelers along State Eligible Scenic Highway SR 74. Alternative 1br would have less exposure
from the roadway than other Build Alternatives 1a, 1b, and Design Option 1b1 because it would
be located lower on slopes of the West Hemet Hills than Build Alternative 1a, 1b, and Design
Option 1b1.
127
91
Other reasonably foreseeable development projects would eliminate much of the
remaining rural nature of the area and replace it with residential, commercial, and light industrial
uses. This would occur based on the construction of the proposed development projects shown
in Figure 3.6‐1, and listed in Appendix H, as well as the infrastructure projects listed in Table 3.6‐
2. A similar impact to the proposed Project would also occur with the construction of the Mid
County Parkway Project in the northern portion of the San Jacinto Valley. The proposed Project
would result in a permanent change to the visual character and visual quality of the San Jacinto
Valley. This impact can be minimized, but not fully avoided and, therefore, would represent a
cumulative adverse effect.
There are no mitigation measures that can completely eliminate the impact of the
removal of large segments of the existing hillsides, creation of fill slopes, and the construction of
new bridge structures, but measures have been proposed for the Project to minimize this impact.
These measures include grading to mimic the natural conditions in the area and the inclusion of
site treatments, including embankment development and design, rock weathering, other
hardscape and landscape, to improve the visual character and aesthetics of the local setting. The
objectives of these measures should be mimicked in other projects, independent of their scale,
to ensure that the minimization of visual impacts would collectively occur from all the reasonably
foreseeable land and infrastructure projects in the San Jacinto Valley. However, due to the
ongoing change to visual character in the San Jacinto Valley, the Project would contribute to the
cumulative effect of declining rural and agricultural aesthetic values in the San Jacinto Valley,
which are directly associated with the visual character and quality of the area. (final EIR/EIS, p.
3‐797.)
B. Air Quality: The assessment of air quality considers the regional air basin where
the cumulative Project study area is, South Coast Air Basin. The Project is located in a federal
nonattainment area for O3, and PM2.5, and a federal maintenance area for CO and PM10.
Therefore the project is required to demonstrate regional conformity for these pollutants. The
Project is included in the state highways project list of the conforming 2015 SCAG FTIP through
Amendment 15‐01 and SCAG 2012‐2015 RTP though Amendment #2 (Appendix F: RTP
Amendment). The 2012‐2035 RTP through Amendment #2 and the 2015 FTIP through
Amendment 15‐01 were approved by FHWA and FTA on December 15, 2014. The design concept
and scope of the proposed Project are consistent with the project description in the 2012‐2035
RTP through Amendment #2, and the and the 2015 FTIP (through Amendment 15‐01), and the
“open to traffic” assumptions of the SCAG’s regional emissions analysis.
Inclusion in the RTP and FTIP demonstrates that the Project was evaluated for regional
impacts, meets the planning and regional requirements for demonstration of federal conformity,
and is consistent with local air quality planning efforts.
Based on the CO hot spot analysis performed for the project and the conclusion of TCWG
that the project is not a project of air quality concern under the PM2.5/PM10 hot spot analysis.
Therefore, the project is not expected to cause or contribute to any new localized CO, PM10 or
PM2.5 violations, and would not increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations of
128
92
the CO, PM10 or PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and would not delay
timely attainment of the CO, PM10 or PM2.5 NAAQS. Regional MSAT emissions will improve by
2035 because of United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) national control
programs.
The air quality analysis of cumulative effects considers construction activities and traffic
emissions generated by planned land uses, including the Project, and other planned
transportation improvements. For construction, because ozone is a regional pollutant and has
short‐term air quality standards (e.g., 8 hours), ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides [NOX] and
reactive organic gases [ROG]) were considered for cumulative effects. According to the Southern
California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) white paper, “Potential Control Strategies
to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, Appendix D Cumulative Impact Analysis
Requirements Pursuant to CEQA” (SCAQMD 2003), projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s
project‐specific standards are generally not considered by SCAQMD to be cumulatively
significant. Conversely, projects that exceed the SCAQMD’s project‐specific standards are
considered cumulatively considerable by SCAQMD. The Department does not adopt thresholds
of significance for projects. However, based on the analysis in the SCAQMD white paper, these
levels are justified for this Project. Therefore, based on the assessment in Section 3.2.6, ROG
emissions would not have a cumulative impact on air quality because the emissions are below
the levels of concern to SCAQMD. However, NOX emissions during construction with
implementation of the minimization measures would exceed the SCAQMD level of concern of
100 pounds per day. NOX emissions would be expected to contribute to a temporary adverse
cumulative effect on air quality during the project construction phase.
The proposed Project is located in an area designated as nonattainment of the California
ozone air quality standards. Construction of the Project would result in elevated NOX emissions
exceeding SCAQMD’s level of concern, even with minimization measures. Construction
emissions of NOX would contribute to a cumulative adverse effect on air quality. Therefore,
construction of the Project is expected to contribute to existing violations of the ozone standards.
This impact would be temporary because it would only occur during construction. However, the
proposed construction schedule of the Project is expected to require several years. The Project
would incorporate both standard practices and mitigation measures during construction to
lessen the impact on air quality.
During this timeframe, it is expected that other reasonably foreseeable projects would
also be constructed in the San Jacinto Valley. Based on the size and number of the development
projects (commercial, residential, and industrial) shown in Figure 3.6‐1 and listed in Appendix H
and the infrastructure projects listed in Table 3.6 2, several of them could be in construction at
the same time as the Project and also be contributing to this cumulative impact. When
considering the other large infrastructure projects, based on the anticipated schedule, only the
Mid County Parkway Project may overlap in construction schedules in the vicinity of the proposed
Project. If these circumstances were to occur, the NOx emission impacts of all these projects
when combined would result in an adverse cumulative impact to air quality.
129
93
The Project would incorporate minimization measures during construction to lessen the
effect of NOX emissions from construction activities. Key measures include, to the extent
feasible, suspending all construction equipment operations during second‐stage smog alerts,
using electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel‐ or gasoline‐powered
generators, minimizing traffic interference on local streets and maintaining smooth traffic flow
on and near construction site, rerouting construction trucks from congested streets or sensitive
receptor areas, and limiting vehicle idling time (see AQ‐1 through AQ‐14 in Section 3.2.6.4).
Other projects proposed in the San Jacinto Valley would be expected also to incorporate
minimization measures during construction to lessen the effect of NOX emissions from their
construction activities due to the ozone nonattainment designation of the region. However, due
to the ozone nonattainment designation of the region and short‐term elevated NOx emissions,
Project construction would temporarily result in the cumulative effect of contributing to ozone
formation. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐813.)
C. Cultural Resources: As discussed in Sections 3.1.8.2 and 3.6.3.4, evaluation of all
cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) resulted in the identification of six
resources eligible or presumed eligible, for the purposes of the Project, for inclusion in the NRHP
and/or CRHR. The Project has the potential to significantly impact the CBJ Dairy (33‐15752), the
TCP, and PPAD. Together, these three historical resources would be directly or indirectly
impacted by the Project and are discussed in terms of their potential for contributing to
cumulative impacts.
The TCP encompasses 2,908.3 acres of land that includes, among other things, the 470.8
acres (‘Anó΄ Potma hill) and 1,000 acres of intervening valley that contains approximately 465
acres of open space. The Project will directly impact 141.1 acres of land from within the property
(equivalent to 4.9 percent) of the TCP. The PPAD contains an unknown number of archaeological
resources and extends beyond the limits of the APE and may extend beyond the 9‐mile Study
Area investigated during Phase II studies. The character‐defining feature that contributes to the
significance of the PPAD that may be adversely affected consists of a collection of 24 prehistoric
bedrock milling components. Caltrans previously determined the 24 bedrock milling components
were not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. The PPAD for Build Alternative 1br will result
in the direct use of 3 bedrock milling components which are contributing elements of the PPAD.
Although the bedrock milling components have been determined individually ineligible for listing
on the NRHP, the Project could result in a cumulative impact due to the unknown number of
archaeological resources that may extend beyond the limits of the PPAD where additional
bedrock milling components and other prehistoric sites may exist.
Archaeological sites CA RIV‐6907/H and CA‐RIV‐8156/H (PPAD component) can be
protected in place during Project construction through the establishment of an Environmentally
Sensitive Area (ESA).
The Project would also have an indirect impact/effect to the setting of the property at
Chéexayam Pum’wáppivu resulting from the introduction of visible elements.
130
94
The Project in this location requires construction of new elevated roadway and bridges,
and mitigation for visual impacts is proposed that would reduce the indirect impact; nonetheless,
impacts cannot be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, it has been
determined that the Project would have a significant impact/effect on this resource. The
cumulative contribution of the direct and indirect Project impact/effect to the TCP is considered
in the context of a broader study area that includes San Jacinto Valley in the north and Pleasant
Valley in the Winchester area.
The cumulative contribution of the indirect Project impact to the CBJ Dairy is considered
in the context of a broader study area that includes San Jacinto Valley in the north and Pleasant
Valley in the Winchester area. This corridor has seen a general pattern of historical
transformation from vacant land to historical farmsteads to commercial agricultural pursuits and
now to residential and commercial centers. The impacts of past and foreseeable projects in the
San Jacinto Valley and Pleasant Valley are combined with the potential Project impacts to the CBJ
Dairy to assess the Project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts. Only within the last
decade has this rural area been transformed from small commercial agricultural properties and
homesteads to mid‐ to high‐density housing developments and retail commercial facilities. The
area has been dominated by agricultural pursuits since the 1890s, when it was characterized by
individual farmsteads that supported a variety of agricultural operations, including dry farming,
small orchards, beekeeping, poultry raising, dairying, and cattle grazing. This agricultural region
was characterized by structures typical of family and small commercial ranches—vernacular,
generally simple and functional residences, surrounded by a variety of barns, corrals, coops,
storage and processing buildings, dams, ponds, fences, and shelters. Such structures and
landscape features are considered to be cultural resources, which through time (generally 50
years) and distinction or importance, may qualify for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Many of these
farms and ranches in the cumulative impacts study area, which represent an important
component of America’s cultural heritage, have been impacted or destroyed by ground‐
disturbing activities associated with development, as well as by changes in the visual character
of the historic setting and other indirect effects. While there are no known agricultural structures
in the study area that have been found eligible for the NRHP, there is no easily obtainable record
of the number of structures in this broader study area that may qualify as historic properties or
historical resources or how many of those have already been destroyed.
Two future projects could contribute incrementally to impacts to the CBJ Dairy and thus
would contribute to cumulative impacts in the study area, the MCP Project and San Jacinto
Gateway Specific Plan. Construction of the proposed MCP, which would intersect the Project at
its northern end, would impact open‐space portions in the northern and eastern end of the
resource (but not elements such as buildings that contribute to the resource’s CRHR eligibility)
with all proposed build alternatives. Only one build alternative, the San Jacinto North Design
Variation, which would impact the majority of the resource and its structures, would have a direct
impact to this historical resource.
There are nine cumulative projects that would incrementally contribute to
impacts/effects on the TCP. Two projects are currently under construction and include Vesting
131
95
Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 28286 and Tract Map (TR) 30351. Seven future projects are
proposed in the study area and include General Plan Amendment (GPA) 06‐01; GPA 05‐02;
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 32516; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 03479; Parcel Map (PM) 33564;
TR 33117; and TR 33958. Each of these projects is described below and is assessed for its potential
to contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts on the TCP.
VTTM 28286, known as Heartland Village, is currently constructing 1,368 residential lots,
a commercial site, and golf club northwest of Florida Avenue and California Avenue. The Project
impacts open space, developed residential tracts, and partially developed tract portions of the
TCP. TR 30351, located north of Stetson Avenue, east of Green Avenue, and west of Patterson
Avenue, is currently constructing 260 residential units and impacting an approximate 73‐acre
portion of the approximate 1,000 acres intervening valley, a contributing element to the
resource's CRHR/NRHP eligibility.
Future development of GPA 06‐01, located southeast of Devonshire Avenue and Los
Rancherias Road, would impact open‐space portions of the TCP, including a small boulder‐laden
area in the West Hemet Hills. GPA 05‐02, known as Emerald Acres, proposes construction on
approximately 320 acres of land that includes approximately 235 acres of the approximate 470.8‐
acres ‘Anó΄ Potma, a contributing element to the resource's CRHR/NRHP eligibility. This would
destroy approximately 46 percent of ‘Anó΄ Potma and would introduce visual elements that
would have an indirect impact/effect to the setting of the property. TPM 32516, located along
McCarron Way, proposes construction of three new single‐family residences that would impact
a partially developed residential tract along the northern boundary of the TCP. Construction of
CUP 03479, located southeast of Florida Avenue and Patterson Avenue, would impact a partially
developed tract within the TCP. Construction of PM 33564, located southwest of Asbury Street
and Longfellow Avenue, would impact a partially developed tract of land with open space within
the TCP. TR 33117, known as the Villages of Winchester, proposes construction of 469 single‐
family lots in approximately 135 acres of open space and 30 acres of partially developed land
within the intervening valley, a contributing element to the resource's CRHR/NRHP eligibility. This
would reduce the open space within the intervening valley to 330 acres or by approximately 29
percent and would introduce visual elements that would have an indirect impact/effect to the
setting of the property. TM 33598, located north of Grand Avenue and north of Adams Road,
proposes construction of 36 residential units that would impact undeveloped open space in the
southwestern portion of the TCP. When considered together, all nine projects discussed above
would contribute to a cumulative impact on the TCP. Therefore, those projects would contribute
to a decline in the overall health of cultural resources. Considering the proposed impacts/effects
to the TCP proposed by the various build alternatives and design options considered for the
Project, the incremental impact/effect of the Project is considered cumulatively considerable.
In addition to previous documentation of the affected historical resources/historic
properties, additional efforts to avoid, mitigate, and minimize impacts to historical resources,
measures CR‐1 through CR‐4 are presented in Section 3.1.8.4 (and the ECR in Appendix D and is
provided as an attachment to this ROD). Caltrans is continuing to consult to resolve adverse
132
96
effects pursuant to Section 106 PA Stipulation XI, and 35 CFR 800.6 through preparation of a MOA
in consultation with consulting parties.
The Project would incorporate mitigation and minimization measures to lessen the effect
of the Project on historical resources/historic properties. However, these measures would not
reduce Project impacts/effects to the TCP and PPAD to a level less than significant; therefore, the
Project would contribute to the cumulative effect of the declining health of cultural resources.
D. Findings: As to each of the cumulatively considerable impacts above, RCTC has
come to conclusion that the Mitigation Measures summarized above would not fully mitigate the
Project impacts on aesthetics, air quality, and cultural resources to below a level of significance.
The mitigation measures reflect changes or alterations that have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which would lessen the project impact as identified in the final
EIR/EIS but not to below a level of significance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).)
Further, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the “No Build”
Alternative identified in the Final EIR that would avoid this significant impact for the specific
reasons set forth in Section VIII, below. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).)
133
97
SECTION VI
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 3.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources That Would Be
Involved in the Proposed Project (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐777), describes the potential long‐term
commitments of resources if the SR‐79 Realignment project is implemented. The construction
of Alternative 1br would result in the commitment of resources throughout the existence of the
Project. Project construction would be associated with a substantial expenditure of both state
and federal funds, which are not retrievable. Construction materials such as sand, cement, steel,
wood, asphalt would be used, and energy (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel) would be expended to build
the proposed Project. Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources would be used
in making these construction materials and generally are not retrievable. Once obtained and/or
dedicated to the Project, these resources would not be available to other transportation projects
or for any other future use.
The Project would require the commitment of land for the roadway and associated
facilities. Agricultural lands, biological habitat, open space, and other land uses that are
converted for the Project would be lost. Although the proposed Project would be considered a
permanent use, if a greater need arises for use of the land, or if the facility is no longer needed,
the land could ultimately be converted to another use. However, this is highly unlikely and,
therefore, conversion of existing land uses would be considered an irretrievable commitment of
resources.
Project operation would be associated with ongoing expenditures of state and local funds
for maintenance and upkeep. As with construction funding, these financial commitments would
be considered irretrievable once they are obtained and/or dedicated to the proposed Project.
The Project would require disposal of nonhazardous materials at Lamb Canyon Landfill.
Landfill capacity is finite, and once used, available capacity would not be available to other
transportation projects or for any other future use. The Project’s disposal of excess material in
area landfills would be an irretrievable commitment of landfill capacity.
The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of materials, labor, resources, and funds
associated with the Build alternatives is offset by the beneficial aspects of an improved
transportation system. Associated benefits would consist of improved accessibility, travel, time,
and safety for residents, workers, travelers, and others.
134
98
SECTION VII
FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH‐INDUCING IMPACTS
Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is
provided to examine ways in which the SR‐79 Realignment project could foster economic or
population growth or the construction of additional development, either directly or indirectly, in
the surrounding environment. Section 15126.2(d) describes the consideration of growth‐
inducing impacts as:
“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population
growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to
population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for
example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may
tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could
cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristics of some projects
which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in
any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the
environment.”
The growth inducing impacts for the SR‐79 Realignment project are discussed in detail in
Section 3.1.2 Growth (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐60).
The Project would construct a new limited‐access expressway to provide a more direct
and efficient north‐south regional roadway through the San Jacinto Valley. Points of access
(interchanges or intersections) would be provided to east‐west arterials or regional expressways
and improve the regional accessibility in the valley. Projects such as a bypass, new road, or new
interchange are the most likely to have growth‐related impacts. Based on the type of this Project,
being a limited‐access expressway, growth would have the greatest potential to occur adjacent
to a proposed interchange. The amount of growth expected would be attributed to the volume
of undeveloped land in that immediate area. This growth would also be managed by the control
allowed to the local jurisdiction and the restrictions included in their corresponding general plan
or the County’s MSHCP. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐74)
All of western Riverside County is expected to experience increased growth rates when
compared to the surrounding areas. This growth has been planned and is addressed in the
updated general plans for Riverside County and also for the local jurisdictions (Hemet, San
Jacinto) within the Project area. While Riverside County determined that infrastructure needs
would not induce growth, the timing and type of development on immediate parcels of
undeveloped land adjacent to proposed interchanges may be influenced by the proposed Project.
Therefore, the Project could contribute to the location, timing, or type of growth that may occur
on undeveloped parcels adjacent to the proposed Project interchanges. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐74)
135
99
Although land development activities are occurring near the Project, they are not in
response to the Project. These development activities are in response to housing demand and
have been included in the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) process. These
developments occur throughout the entire valley and not only adjacent to the Project. These
development activities can and have been moving forward independent of the Project. In
addition, no development project in the San Jacinto Valley has received a condition of approval
as part of their entitlement process specifically requiring the construction or operation of the
Project prior to occupancy. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐74)
Although changes to the rate of growth or localized patterns of land use may change,
these would be considered negligible compared to the changes already planned for the San
Jacinto Valley. Development projects are currently proposed extensively throughout the San
Jacinto Valley. The portion of the valley potentially influenced by the proposed Project would
occur around the proposed Project interchanges, where only a relatively small portion of
undeveloped land remains when compared to the total area within the San Jacinto Valley.
Because of that, even if all that undeveloped land adjacent to the interchanges would be
influenced by the Project and develop more quickly than otherwise expected, its relative
proportion is very low when compared to the size of the San Jacinto Valley. Extensive residential,
commercial, and infrastructure projects are planned in the San Jacinto Valley. Most of the
projects would occur with or without the Project. The amount of growth will be essentially the
same with or without the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐75)
Because the Project may have some influence on the rate and location of growth near the
proposed Project interchanges, it could also influence impacts on environmental resources of
concern, as outlined in Table 3.1‐12 (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐77). At the current time there are
additional influences on the rate and location of growth in the San Jacinto Valley beyond the
Project. A main influence is the current economic conditions that have resulted in an increase of
residential and commercial vacancies in the Project area. Because of that, it would seem unlikely
that the Project would influence the construction of new development adjacent to the Project
interchanges at this time even though growth in the Project area is also inevitable and planned
for in the general plans for the local jurisdictions. In addition, there are potential influences
beyond what is currently known. Because of these influences, the proposed Project is only
expected to minimally contribute to the rate and location of growth adjacent to the Project. The
majority of the influence on this development is expected to remain with the individual property
owner of each of the undeveloped parcels adjacent to the proposed Project interchanges.
Because of this, mitigation is not proposed for the Project to address the minimal contribution to
development that may occur on private property adjacent to the proposed Project interchanges.
When those impacts involve protected resources (e.g., species, wetlands, storm water), impacts
could only occur as permitted or approved by the responsible regulatory agency. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 3‐76)
Avoidance and minimization of impacts, including those that are growth related, have
been an objective of the Project since the preliminary development phases. RCTC and Caltrans
have initiated and participated in the FHWA NEPA/404 MOU process to guide the development
136
100
of the Project. This effort was undertaken because of the potential for substantial impacts to
waters of the United States, including wetlands (vernal pools) and the species they support,
including listed and endemic species. Each of the approving or commenting federal and state
agencies associated with these resources participated in this process to ensure that impacts to
resources of concern would be avoided or minimized. Future minimization efforts would be
implemented during final design or construction. This undertaking has resulted in a reasonable
range of Build Alternatives, including efforts to avoid impacts to resources of concern, that
represent the most viable options identified to date for a limited‐access expressway in the San
Jacinto Valley. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐79)
Conclusion
Although growth‐related impacts associated with the Project may occur, their influence
would not be expected to result in substantially different impacts to resources of concern.
137
101
SECTION VIII
FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT 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:
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 participation. An ElR 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 alternative analysis:
Because an E1R 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:
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.
138
102
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 Ass’n
v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 403; Laurel Hills Homeowners Ass’n v.
City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) Caltrans and RCTC have identified and included in
Preferred Alternative 1br mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant environmental impacts of the SR‐79 Realignment project. However, Aesthetics; Air
Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; and Cumulative Impacts (Aesthetics, Air
Quality, and Cultural Resources) would remain significant after mitigation.
The objectives of the SR‐79 Realignment project (final EIR/EIS, p. 1‐5) is to provide a
transportation facility that will effectively and efficiently accommodate regional north‐south
movement of people and goods between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road by:
• Improving traffic flow for local and regional north‐south traffic in the San Jacinto Valley
• Improving operational efficiency and enhance safety conditions by maintaining route
continuity and upgrade the facility
• Allowing regional traffic, including truck traffic, to bypass local roads
• Reducing the diversion of traffic from state routes onto local roads. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐
2.)
There are two types of alternatives evaluated in the final EIR/EIS for the SR‐79
Realignment project. First are the alternatives that were considered but were rejected from
further consideration. Reasons for elimination included failure to meet basic project objective,
infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines, §
15126.6(c).). Those alternatives and the process of developing, accessing, and ultimately
eliminating those alternatives is discussed in Section 2.2.5 (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐26) and summarized
below.
Second are the alternatives that were considered in detail in the final EIR/EIS. Those
alternatives were:
Build Alternative 1a–Roadway Segments A, E, G, I, J, L, and N
Build Alternative 1b–Roadway Segments B, C, G, I, K, M, and N
139
103
Design Option 1b1—Roadway Segments B, C, G, I, K, M, and N
Build Alternative 1b with Refinements (1br)—Roadway Segments B, C, G, I, J, M, and
N
Build Alternative 2a—Roadway Segments A, F, H, I, K, L, and N
Build Alternative 2b—Roadway Segments B, D, H, I, J, M, and N
Design Option 2b1—Roadway Segments B, D, H, I, J, M, and N
No Build Alternative
A complete discussion of alternatives that were considered in detail is also provided
below.
B. Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration
In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in the final EIR/EIS, a
number of possible alternatives were initially considered and rejected. Alternatives were
rejected because either they could not accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project,
would not have resulted in a reduction of potentially significant impacts, or were considered
infeasible. The specific reasons for not selecting each of the rejected alternatives are described
below.
1. SR 79 Realignment Study Report (1998) and Project Study Report/Project
Development Support (2002):
As discussed in Sections 2.2.5.2 and 2.2.5.3 of the final EIR/EIS, the State Route 79
Realignment Study Report (January 1998) documented the first attempt to identify alternatives
for the proposed Project. The alternatives developed included the No Build alternative, as well
as eight design alternatives. This included four alternatives for the southern section (Domenigoni
Parkway to north of Devonshire Avenue) and four for the northern section (north of Devonshire
Avenue to Gilman Springs Road) of the San Jacinto Valley. They are identified as Alternatives A
through H in the report. The material in the Realignment Study Report was used to initiate a
discussion of the proposed Project with the public and regulatory agencies. The report concluded
with documentation of the meetings and did not eliminate any of the alternatives from further
study. Following the completion of the Realignment Study Report (1998), a study was prepared
to advance the detail on the alternatives considered for the Project. The Project Study
Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS)(2002) was undertaken to advance the concepts
for the alternatives for the proposed Project. Because of this study, the initial eight design
sections were improved to create a number of alternative segments for the Project. The locations
of these segments in the San Jacinto Valley are shown in Exhibit H of the PSR/PDS and are
included in Appendix J of the final EIR/EIS. Summaries of the eliminated segments are provided
below.
Eliminated Segments:
140
104
Segment WR – As stated in the PSR/PDS, this alignment runs on top of existing Warren
Road, which would remove the capacity of the existing road from the local circulation. Segment
WR was eliminated because it would have created a regulatory constraint due to the
inconsistency with the City of San Jacinto Circulation Element of the General Plan because it
would remove that segment of Warren Road from the local circulation identified within the
General Plan. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐27.)
Segment 5N – This alignment also runs on top of existing Warren Road, which would
remove the capacity of the existing road from the local circulation. Segment 5N was eliminated
because it would have created a regulatory constraint due to the inconsistency with the City of
San Jacinto Circulation Element of the General Plan because it would remove that segment of
Warren Road from the local circulation identified within the General Plan. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐27.)
Segment 6N – This alignment cuts several parcels at a diagonal. Segment 6N was
eliminated because the large skew angle between the SR 79 and Ramona Expressway would
require a much longer structure than a perpendicular crossing and the interchange geometrics
would require a larger amount of land to provide proper intersection geometrics for the ramp
intersections. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐27.)
Segment 3N – This alignment was modified to become Alignment 3NR as shown in Exhibit
B. Segment 3N was eliminated because it would not be compatible with current Caltrans design
standards. Interchanges would have a smaller skew angle, which would be on a large radius curve
such that it would require a large amount of land to provide the necessary turning movements
when compared with a standard perpendicular crossing at existing and/or planned future
interchanges. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐27.)
Segment 2N – This alignment impacts the wetlands area adjacent to the wastewater
treatment plant. Segment 2N was eliminated to avoid a regulatory constraint. Segment 2N was
not compatible with current and planned land uses (public wastewater treatment facility) and
would have impacted biological resources (wetlands). (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐27.)
Segment 4N – This alignment also impacts the wetlands area adjacent to the wastewater
treatment plant. Segment 4N was eliminated to avoid a regulatory constraint. Segment 4N was
not compatible with current and planned land uses (public wastewater treatment facility) and
would have impacted biological resources (wetlands). (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐28.)
Segment 1N – This alignment is too close to existing Sanderson Avenue and would create
geometry at its crossing of Sanderson Avenue that would not be compatible with current Caltrans
design standards. The skew angle between Sanderson Avenue and the proposed alignment
would require major realignment of Sanderson for an at‐grade intersection in the expressway
condition and for a freeway condition the structure would be very long over Sanderson. Also,
the geometrics for an interchange with Sanderson and SR 79 would not be standard. A far greater
amount of land would be needed than with a perpendicular crossing. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐28.)
141
105
Segment 1M – This alignment impacts the vernal pool complex on the east side of the San
Diego Canal. There was a preliminary biological resources survey prepared in 2001. The survey
found that the alignment would have occurred on top of two of the largest vernal pool complexes
in the playa, which contained listed plant species. It would have eliminated a great deal of the
playa (estimated at 25 to 40 percent), potentially disrupted the hydrology for half of the playa,
and eliminated 2 of the 3 largest vernal pools in the complex. Segment 1M was eliminated to
avoid a regulatory constraint and impacts to biological resources of the vernal pool complex,
which is regulated by USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB as it is a Water of the U.S. per Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐28.)
Segment 2M – Similar to Segment 1M, this alignment impacts the vernal pool complex on
the east side of the San Diego Canal. There was a preliminary biological resources survey
prepared in 2001. The survey found that the alignment would have occurred on top of two of
the largest vernal pool complexes in the playa, which contained listed plant species. It would
have eliminated a great deal of the playa (estimated at 25 to 40 percent), potentially disrupted
the hydrology for half of the playa, and eliminated 2 of the 3 largest vernal pools in the complex.
Segment 2M was eliminated to avoid a regulatory constraint and impacts to biological resources
of the vernal pool complex, which is regulated by USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB as it is a Water of
the U.S. per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐28.)
Segment 5S – This alignment was shifted to the west to provide greater separation from
the end of the runway at the Hemet‐Ryan Airport. SR 79 is required to be far enough west to
provide room for the runway expansion and for the realignment of Warren Road. Segment 5S
was revised to meet FAA design standards for a runway protection zone. As such, Segment 5S
was eliminated and replaced with Segment 2MR. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐28.)
Segment 2S – This alternative was eliminated because it did not meet the Project’s
purpose and need. As stated in the PSR/PDS, this alignment utilizes existing Domenigoni Parkway
between Winchester Road and California Avenue, which combines east‐west traffic with north‐
south traffic and minimizes the overall capacity of this link in the overall highway system. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐28.)
Segment 1S – This alternative was eliminated to avoid a regulatory constraint. As
discussed in the PSR/PDS, this alignment would run adjacent to and just south of Domenigoni
Parkway between Winchester Road and California Avenue. This would impact habitat for the
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, which is a listed species regulated by USFWS, and would also make
the geometrics of an interchange with Domenigoni Parkway not compatible with current Caltrans
design standards. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐28.)
Segment 4S – This alignment would have paralleled the railroad tracks, either being north
of the railroad or having the railroad tracks in the median of SR 79. It was concluded that the
vernal pools present east of California Avenue and north of the railroad would make any
construction on the north side of the railroad tracks undesirable from an environmental
standpoint. Segment 4S was eliminated to avoid a regulatory constraint, as it would have an
142
106
increased impact to potential biological resources. Segment 4S was carried forward as Alignment
4SR and would run on the south side of the railroad tracks to avoid the impact to the vernal pools.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐29.)
Sanderson Avenue – This alignment would have upgraded existing Sanderson Avenue to
expressway standards; however, this alternative was eliminated as unreasonable because of the
existing development, numerous signals, and driveway connections along Sanderson Avenue.
This alternative would also not meet the Project’s purpose and need as it would remove the
capacity of the existing road. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐29.)
Existing SR 79 – The alternative of upgrading the existing SR 79 alignment was eliminated
as unreasonable because of the existing development, numerous traffic signals, and private
driveway connections along alignment. As stated in the PSR/PDS, upgrading this alignment to
expressway standards would result in massive disruption to the business districts of these
communities and would not be compatible with adjacent land uses. Moreover, this alternative
would not meet the Project’s purpose and need as it would remove the capacity of the existing
road. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐29.)
The segments considered appropriate for further study include Segment WRR, Segment
6S, Segment 2MR, Segment 3MR, Segment 4SR, and Segment 3SR. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐29.)
2. Final Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection for Preliminary Agreement (June
2004)
As part of the project development process, the state and federal resource agencies were
consulted regarding the proposed Project. Resource agency meetings were initiated during the
preparation and review of the Project’s Purpose and Need, as specified under the NEPA/404
Integration Process. This approach was adopted for the Project because construction had the
potential to permanently impact more than 5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. During this early
consultation, the resource agencies identified that the biological resources within the areas of
the San Jacinto Valley, primarily in an alkali vernal pool/playa complex in Hemet, were deemed
so biologically sensitive (supporting threatened and endangered species, some endemic) that a
more comprehensive review of the proposed Project Build Alternatives was requested to be
undertaken. This resulted in a more comprehensive approach to reviewing all possible alignment
alternatives in the San Jacinto Valley for the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐29.)
As part of this process, 91 roadway segments between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman
Springs Road were identified. Included in the 91 roadway segments were the segments
evaluated in the PSR/PDS. This meant that any alternative previously considered and/or
eliminated for the Project as part of the PSR/PDS was now being reconsidered for the Project. To
analyze each segment, they were classified by type and then screened against essential Project
criteria. Segments were eliminated from further evaluation if they were inconsistent with the
Project purpose and need or were otherwise infeasible or avoidable based on constructability,
environmental impacts, or reasonability. Based on criteria screening, 30 segments were
143
107
eliminated from further evaluation. Eleven segments were eliminated for MSHCP avoidance, five
segments were eliminated because of community impact avoidance, six segments were
eliminated for Section 4(f) avoidance, four segments were eliminated because of inconsistencies
with the Project purpose and need, three segments were eliminated for Hemet Ryan Airport
avoidance, and one segment was eliminated for landfill avoidance. In addition, 11 segments were
eliminated from further evaluation due to their connection to an eliminated segment and
subsequent isolation from the remaining viable segments. All of the roadway segments reviewed
in this process are shown in Figure ES of the 2004 Final Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection
for Preliminary Agreement, which is included in Appendix J. Those segments that were deemed
appropriate for further analysis are shown in Figure E3 of the 2004 Final Project Criteria and
Alternatives Selection for Preliminary Agreement, which is also included in Appendix J. This
analysis was documented in the report Final Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection for
Preliminary Agreement (June 2004). (final EIR/EIS, pp. 2‐29 and 2‐30.)
Based on the results of the screening evaluation described above, segments were
considered collectively to identify complete alignment alternatives for further study. In areas
where more than one segment remained and similarities occurred (i.e., adjacent location or
connection points from and to other segments), an “Alignment Review Area” was created. The
Alignment Review Areas created for the remaining roadway segments are shown in Figure K of
the 2004 Final Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection for Preliminary Agreement and
consolidated and shown in Figure L1 of that document. Both figures are included in Appendix J.
At the conclusion of this report, three alignment alternatives containing Alignment Review Areas
(corridors) were identified and proposed for further analysis for the Project. They included the
Western, Central, and Eastern alignments (Figures L2, L3, and L4 of the 2004 Final Project Criteria
and Alternatives Selection for Preliminary Agreement). The resource agencies approved these
alignment alternatives for the Project, as documented in the correspondence for Preliminary
Agreement pursuant to the NEPA/404 MOU. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐30.)
3. Value Analysis Study Report (2006)
A Value Analysis (VA) Study was conducted for the Project to review alternatives to
optimize Project design with respect to costs and impacts. Through this process, a new VA
alternative was identified and accepted for the Project, as shown in Number 3.1.2 of the 2006
Value Analysis Study Report (see also Appendix J). This alternative was determined acceptable
because it would reduce the environmental impact and improve the separation between regional
and local traffic in the area. This alternative was named the “Midwestern Alternative.” (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐30.)
4. Supplemental Information for Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection for
Updated Preliminary Agreement (May 2005) and Request for Updated Preliminary Agreement
for Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection and Responses (August 2005)
After the Preliminary Agreement was issued, new information was acquired for the
Project and shared with the resource agencies. As a result, FHWA made a request to the resource
144
108
agencies to remove Segment 6 from the Project and substitute the New Alternative for the
Eastern Alternative. Segment 6 was determined, with the assistance of USFWS, to impact
Southwestern Riverside County Multi‐Species Reserve. Segment 6 was eliminated to avoid
impacts to the Southwestern Riverside County Multi‐Species Reserve. The Eastern Alternative
was proposed to be eliminated to minimize substantial community impacts. This information is
documented in Supplemental Information for Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection for
Updated Preliminary Agreement (May 2005). The locations of the segments removed from
further analysis are shown in Figure E4 of that document (see also Appendix J). In addition, 8
segments (Segments 17, 27, 28, I‐K, K‐M, M‐U, W‐Z, and FF‐NN), shown in yellow in Figure E4,
were eliminated from further evaluation due to their connection to an eliminated segment and
subsequent isolation from the remaining viable segments. The proposed eliminations were
approved by the resource agencies (Updated Preliminary Agreement), and the Eastern Alignment
and the isolated segments were eliminated from further consideration for the Project. (final
EIR/EIS, pp. 2‐30 and 2‐31.)
The remaining roadway segments for this analysis are shown in Figure E5 of the 2005
Supplemental Information for Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection for Updated Preliminary
Agreement (also in Appendix J [Volume 2]). The corresponding alternative corridors, Western
(Corridor 1), Central (Corridor 2), and Midwestern (Corridor 3), are shown, respectively, in Figures
L5 through L8 of that document and included in Appendix J (Volume 2). This decision was
documented in Request for Updated Preliminary Agreement for Project Criteria and Alternatives
Selection and Responses (August 2005). (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐31)
During the process of obtaining Updated Preliminary Agreement, the City of Hemet
proposed and elected on May 24, 2005, to adopt an “Interim Urgency Ordinance” establishing
the Western Hemet Planning Area and temporary development regulations applicable to this
Planning Area, pending completion of a comprehensive and collaborative planning process. The
intent of this ordinance was to provide the Project technical team time to complete the review
of the Midwestern Alternative prior to making decisions on the development applications in the
immediate area of the alternative. Subsequent to the technical review, the City of Hemet
changed its designation of the Locally Preferred Alternative from the alignment shown in the
1992 Hemet General Plan (Central Alternative [Corridor 2]) to the Midwestern Alternative
(Corridor 3). This was documented in the City of Hemet Resolution No. 4216, dated May 13,
2008. As a result of this action, the Central Corridor was also eliminated from further study for
the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐31.)
Refinement of the Western, Midwestern, and Central Alignments continued in 2006 and
2007. As a result of the environmental field survey work done on all the alternatives, it became
apparent that the Central Alignment would heavily impact the vernal pool complex that is south
of Florida Avenue and east of the San Diego Canal. Other segments carried forward would not
have as large an environmental impact on vernal pool resources as the Central Alignment. After
discussions with the various stakeholders, it was agreed to eliminate the Central Alignment from
further consideration to avoid impacts to vernal pools, biological resources, and MSHCP
proposed conservation areas. The Central Alignment is shown as Alignment Review Area A in
145
109
Figures L5 and L7 of the 2005 Supplemental Information for Project Criteria and Alternatives
Selection for Updated Preliminary Agreement (see also Appendix J). (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐31.)
Once this was accomplished, the Western and Midwestern alignments were renamed as
Alternative Corridors 1 and 2, respectively. Build Alternatives 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b were established
to represent four sets of possible roadway segment combinations from those two corridors. This
naming convention was then carried forward into formal scoping and the preparation of the
technical reports for the Project. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 2‐31 and 2‐32.)
C. Alternatives Considered in Detail in the final EIR/EIS
The following alternatives were considered in detail in the final EIR/EIS, but were ultimately
rejected in favor of the Project for all the reasons set forth below:
1. No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐25) would require no action by the Project
proponent. Existing and projected capacity and operational benefits would not be realized.
Existing SR 79 would not be realigned, right of way would not be acquired, and roadway
construction would not occur. The assumption used for the traffic analysis of the No Build
Alternative at the 20‐Year Design Horizon of the Project (2040) include:
The Mid County Parkway would be a four‐lane expressway.
Arterial streets would be built to City or County General Plan classification standards
by 2040.
Improvements planned by Caltrans and the County of Riverside for the portion of SR
79 between Hunter Road and Newport Road would be in place. There would be no
further improvements on this portion of SR 79 before 2040.
All regional facilities would be in accordance with the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
The portion of SR 79 proposed for realignment would remain in place and unchanged.
The selection of the No Build Alternative would not preclude construction of projects currently
included in the General Plans of Riverside, the City of Hemet, and the City of San Jacinto or of
projects that might be proposed in the future.
Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects the No Build
Alternative because it would not meet the Project’s objectives. Specifically, it would not:
Improve traffic flow for local and regional north‐south traffic in the San Jacinto Valley
Improve operational efficiency and enhance safety conditions by maintaining route
continuity and upgrade the facility
Allow regional traffic, including truck traffic, to bypass local roads
Reduce the diversion of traffic from state routes onto local roads
146
110
The No Build Alternative would not result in the losses/impacts described in association
with the Build Alternatives. However, under the No Build Alternative, the existing roadway would
continue to operate at reduced or degraded levels of service. It would not provide the benefits
to traffic circulation or safety that would result from any of the Build alternatives or design
options. (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐775.)
Therefore, this No Build Alternative was rejected by RCTC from further consideration in
favor of the Project.
2. Build Alternative 1a –Roadway Segments A, E, G, I, J, L, and N
Build Alternative 1a involves the following roadway segments (Table 2.2‐1 and Figure 2.2‐
1):
Roadway Segment A
Roadway Segment A begins at existing SR 79 south of Newport Road. The alignment going
north crosses under Newport Road then swings westerly before a long curve to the east
takes the alignment over Domenigoni Parkway, Salt Creek Channel, Winchester Road, and
Olive Avenue on a viaduct structure.
Roadway Segment E
Roadway Segment E continues from Segment A in a northeasterly direction. The
alignment crosses over Whittier Avenue, Patterson Avenue, and Simpson Road, and then
takes a long curve to the north, where it crosses over the San Jacinto Branch Line. It then
crosses over Ranchland Road, where a proposed full interchange is proposed, then
continues farther north over Stowe Road.
Roadway Segment G
Roadway Segment G continues north from Segment C or Segment E, then takes a long
curve around the West Hemet Hills in an easterly direction, where it crosses over
California Avenue. The alignment then curves back again in a northeasterly direction and
crosses over Florida Avenue, where a full interchange is proposed.
Roadway Segment I
Roadway Segment I continues in a northerly direction from Segment G. An overcrossing
is proposed at Devonshire Avenue. For the Preferred Alternative, Build Alternative 1br,
Tres Cerritos Avenue is proposed to be a cul‐de‐sac along the west side of SR 79 with no
direct access to SR 79.
Roadway Segment J
Roadway Segment J continues in a northerly direction from Segment I. A single
undercrossing is proposed that spans over the San Diego Canal, west of Warren Road, and
147
111
north of Esplanade Avenue. A full interchange is proposed at Esplanade Avenue. The
alignment then continues northeasterly with an undercrossing at Seventh Street.
Roadway Segment L
Roadway Segment L continues in a northerly direction from Segment J or Segment K. The
alignment crosses under Cottonwood Avenue and continues over the Casa Loma Canal. It
then crosses over Future Street “B”, where a full interchange is proposed, and takes a
long curve to the east for a short distance, then curves around again to the north, where
it crosses under Sanderson Avenue, then over the Colorado River Aqueduct. Future Street
“B” improvements are to be built by others. This is noted as Bridge Street in the San
Jacinto General Plan.
Roadway Segment N
Roadway Segment N continues in a northerly direction from Segment L or Segment M. It
crosses over the Ramona Expressway and a future drainage facility, where it ties into
existing SR 79 just south of the San Jacinto River.
Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects Build Alternative 1a
because it does not meet the Project’s objectives to the same extent as the Project and because
the alternatives will not reduce or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts and may, in
fact, result in greater environmental impacts than the Project (also referred to as the “Preferred
Alternative” below). Specifically:
Build Alternative 1a does not provide direct access to Winchester Road. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐41.)
Build Alternative 1b requires more cubic yards of roadway excavation than the
Preferred Alternative, thus resulting in greater air quality, GHG, construction
noise, and surface disturbance impacts than the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38.)
Build Alternative 1a would displace more habitat acres for the Stephens’ Kangaroo
Rat and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly than the Preferred Alternative. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38.)
While Build Alternative 1a benefits more residential units, it also requires more
residential acquisitions and displacements than the Preferred Alternative. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐39.)
Build Alternative 1a impacts more acres of prime, unique, and important
farmlands than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐40.)
Build Alternative 1a impacts more historic properties and requires more acres of
direct acquisition of the TCP than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐
40.)
In summary, Build Alternative 1br meets the criteria used to evaluate the Build
Alternatives better than Build Alternative 1a. Therefore, Build Alternative 1a was rejected by
RCTC in favor of the Project.
148
112
3. Build Alternative 1b–Roadway Segments B, C, G, I, K, M, and N
Build Alternative 1b involves the following roadway segments (Table 2.2‐1 and Figure 2.2‐
1):
Roadway Segment B
Roadway Segment B begins at existing SR 79 south of Newport Road. The alignment going
north crosses under Newport Road, then swings easterly and crosses over Patterson
Avenue and Patton Avenue.
Roadway Segment C
Roadway Segment C continues from Segment B in a northeasterly direction, crossing over
Domenigoni Parkway, Salt Creek Channel, and Olive Avenue on a viaduct structure. The
alignment then continues north, where it crosses Simpson Road and the San Jacinto
Branch Line. It then crosses over Ranchland Road, where a future full interchange is
proposed, then continues farther north over Stowe Road.
Roadway Segment G
Roadway Segment G continues north from Segment C or Segment E, then takes a long
curve around the West Hemet Hills in an easterly direction, where it crosses over
California Avenue. The alignment then curves back again in a northeasterly direction and
crosses over Florida Avenue, where a full interchange is proposed.
Roadway Segment I
Roadway Segment I continues in a northerly direction from Segment G. An overcrossing
is proposed at Devonshire Avenue. For the Preferred Alternative, Build Alternative 1br,
Tres Cerritos Avenue is proposed to be a cul‐de‐sac along the west side of SR 79 with no
direct access to SR 79.
Roadway Segment K
Roadway Segment K continues in a northerly direction from Segment I. It crosses south
over Esplanade Avenue, and east of Warren Road, and the San Diego Canal. It crosses the
San Diego Canal south of Esplanade Avenue. A full interchange is proposed at Esplanade
Avenue. The alignment then continues northeasterly and crosses over Seventh Street.
Roadway Segment M
Roadway Segment M continues in a northeasterly direction from Segment J or Segment K.
The alignment crosses under Cottonwood Avenue, then takes a long curve to the
northeast and continues parallel to the Casa Loma Canal. It then crosses under Sanderson
Avenue and takes a long curve to the north, where it crosses over the Colorado River
Aqueduct.
Roadway Segment N
149
113
Roadway Segment N continues in a northerly direction from Segment L or Segment M. It
crosses over the Ramona Expressway and a future drainage facility, where it ties into
existing SR 79 just south of the San Jacinto River.
Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects Build Alternative 1b
because it does not meet the Project’s objectives to the same extent as the Project and because
the alternatives will not reduce or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts and may, in
fact, result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. Specifically:
Build Alternative 1b does not provide direct access to Winchester Road (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐41.).
Build Alternative 1b requires more cubic yards of roadway excavation than the
Preferred Alternative, thus resulting in greater air quality, GHG, construction
noise, and surface disturbance impacts than the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38)
Build Alternative 1b displaces more habitat acres for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat
and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 2‐38.)
While Build Alternative 1b benefits more residential units, it also requires more
residential acquisitions and displacements than the Preferred Alternative. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐39.)
Build Alternative 1b impacts slightly more acres of prime farmlands but slightly
fewer acres of important farmlands than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 2‐40.)
Build Alternative 1a impacts more historic properties and requires more acres of
direct acquisition of the TCP than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐
40.)
In summary, Build Alternative 1br meets the criteria used to evaluate the Build
Alternatives better than Build Alternative 1b. Therefore, Build Alternative 1b was rejected by
RCTC in favor of the Project.
4. Design Option 1b1—Roadway Segments B, D, G, I, K, M, and N
Two design options were developed in response to comments from the Winchester
community regarding the height of the profile as initially described for the base condition. Design
Option 1b1 would be on the southern end of the Project near the Winchester community. It
would affect Roadway Segments B, C, and G of Build Alternative 1b. Design Option 1b1 involves
the following roadway segments (Table 2.2‐1 and Figure 2.2‐1):
Roadway Segment B
Roadway Segment B begins at existing SR 79 south of Newport Road. The alignment going
north crosses under Newport Road, then swings easterly and crosses over Patterson
Avenue and Patton Avenue.
150
114
A design option has been considered for this segment that would include a northbound
exit ramp and southbound entrance ramp from Newport Road to SR 79.
Roadway Segment C
Roadway Segment C continues from Segment B in a northeasterly direction, crossing over
Domenigoni Parkway, Salt Creek Channel, and Olive Avenue on a viaduct structure. The
alignment then continues north, where it crosses Simpson Road and the San Jacinto
Branch Line. It then crosses over Ranchland Road, where a future full interchange is
proposed, then continues farther north over Stowe Road.
A design option was considered for this Segment that would lower the vertical profile
through the valley north of Domenigoni Parkway. This would include an at‐grade crossing
at Simpson Road. Ranchland Road would cross over SR 79, where a future full interchange
would be proposed. SR 79 would continue farther north, with the profile rising to take the
alignment over Stowe Road.
Roadway Segment G
Roadway Segment G continues north from Segment C or Segment E, then takes a long
curve around the West Hemet Hills in an easterly direction, where it crosses over
California Avenue. The alignment then curves back again in a northeasterly direction and
crosses over Florida Avenue, where a full interchange is proposed.
A design option was considered for this Segment in which the vertical profile was revised
to tie in with the lower profile on Segment C through the valley.
Roadway Segment I
Roadway Segment I continues in a northerly direction from Segment G. An overcrossing
is proposed at Devonshire Avenue. For the Preferred Alternative, Build Alternative 1br,
Tres Cerritos Avenue is proposed to be a cul‐de‐sac along the west side of SR 79 with no
direct access to SR 79.
Roadway Segment K
Roadway Segment K continues in a northerly direction from Segment I. It crosses south
over Esplanade Avenue, and east of Warren Road, and the San Diego Canal. It crosses the
San Diego Canal south of Esplanade Avenue. A full interchange is proposed at Esplanade
Avenue. The alignment then continues northeasterly and crosses over Seventh Street.
Roadway Segment M
Roadway Segment M continues in a northeasterly direction from Segment J or Segment K.
The alignment crosses under Cottonwood Avenue, then takes a long curve to the
northeast and continues parallel to the Casa Loma Canal. It then crosses under Sanderson
Avenue and takes a long curve to the north, where it crosses over the Colorado River
Aqueduct.
151
115
Roadway Segment N
Roadway Segment N continues in a northerly direction from Segment L or Segment M. It
crosses over the Ramona Expressway and a future drainage facility, where it ties into
existing SR 79 just south of the San Jacinto River.
Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects Design Option 1b1
because it does not meet the Project’s objectives to the same extent as the Project and because
the alternatives will not reduce or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts and may, in
fact, result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. Specifically:
Design Option 1b1 requires a truck climbing lane, would result in direct impacts to
the San Jacinto Branch Line, would not maintain east‐west road connections with
Winchester Road, and would result in greater air quality, GHG, construction noise,
and surface disturbance impacts than the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐41.).
Design Option 1b1 requires more cubic yards of roadway excavation than the
Preferred Alternative, thus resulting in greater air quality, GHG, construction
noise, and surface disturbance impacts than the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38)
Design Option 1b displaces more habitat acres for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat and
the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p.
2‐38.)
While Design Option 1b1 benefits more residential units, it also requires more
residential acquisitions and displacements than the Preferred Alternative. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐39.)
Design Option 1b1 impacts slightly more acres of prime farmlands but slightly
fewer acres of important farmlands than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 2‐40.)
Design Option 1b1 impacts more historic properties and requires more acres of
direct acquisition of the TCP than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐
40.)
In summary, Build Alternative 1br meets the criteria used to evaluate the Build
Alternatives better than Design Option 1b1. Therefore, Design Option 1b1 was rejected by RCTC
in favor of the Project.
5. Build Alternative 2a—Roadway Segments A, F, H, I, K, L, and N
Build Alternative 2a involves the following roadway segments (Table 2.2‐1 and Figure 2.2‐
1):
Roadway Segment A
Roadway Segment A begins at existing SR 79 south of Newport Road. The alignment going
north crosses under Newport Road then swings westerly before a long curve to the east
152
116
takes the alignment over Domenigoni Parkway, Salt Creek Channel, Winchester Road, and
Olive Avenue on a viaduct structure.
Roadway Segment F
Roadway Segment F continues from Segment A in an easterly direction, where it crosses
over Whittier Avenue and Patterson Avenue. It then crosses over the Hemet Channel and
takes a long curve to the north, where it crosses Simpson Road and a Future Street where
a full interchange is proposed. The alignment then continues north over the San Jacinto
Branch Line, then farther north over Stowe Road.
Roadway Segment H
Roadway Segment H continues in a northeasterly direction from Segment D or Segment F.
It cuts through the West Hemet Hills, then crosses over California Avenue and Florida
Avenue, where a full interchange is proposed.
Roadway Segment I
Roadway Segment I continues in a northerly direction from Segment G. An overcrossing
is proposed at Devonshire Avenue. For the Preferred Alternative, Build Alternative 1br,
Tres Cerritos Avenue is proposed to be a cul‐de‐sac along the west side of SR 79 with no
direct access to SR 79.
Roadway Segment L
Roadway Segment L continues in a northerly direction from Segment J or Segment K. The
alignment crosses under Cottonwood Avenue and continues over the Casa Loma Canal. It
then crosses over Future Street “B”, where a full interchange is proposed, and takes a
long curve to the east for a short distance, then curves around again to the north, where
it crosses under Sanderson Avenue, then over the Colorado River Aqueduct. Future Street
“B” improvements are to be built by others. This is noted as Bridge Street in the San
Jacinto General Plan.
Roadway Segment N
Roadway Segment N continues in a northerly direction from Segment L or Segment M. It
crosses over the Ramona Expressway and a future drainage facility, where it ties into
existing SR 79 just south of the San Jacinto River.
Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects Build Alternative 2a
because it does not meet the Project’s objectives to the same extent as the Project and because
the alternatives will not reduce or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts and may, in
fact, result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. Specifically:
As described in Section 2.3.3.1, Build Alternative 2a was eliminated from further
consideration as this alternative did not provide direct access to Winchester Road.
(final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐41.)
153
117
Build Alternative 2a does not provide direct access to Winchester Road and does
not maintain east‐west road connections to the community of Winchester. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐41.)
Build Alternative 2a requires more cubic yards of roadway excavation than the
Preferred Alternative, thus resulting in greater air quality, GHG, construction
noise, and surface disturbance impacts than the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38)
Build Alternative 2a displaces more habitat acres for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat,
the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and the California Gnatcatcher than the
Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38.)
While Build Alternative 2a benefits more residential units and displaces fewer
residences, it also requires more residential acquisitions than the Preferred
Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐39.)
Build Alternative 2a impacts more acres of prime, unique, and important
farmlands than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐40.)
Build Alternative 2a impacts more historic properties, but requires slightly fewer
acres of direct acquisition of the TCP than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 2‐40.)
In summary, Build Alternative 1br meets the criteria used to evaluate the Build
Alternatives better than Build Alternative 2a. Therefore, Build Alternative 2a was rejected by
RCTC from further consideration in favor of the Project.
6. Build Alternative 2b—Roadway Segments B, D, H, I, J, M, and N
Build Alternative 2b involves the following roadway segments (Table 2.2‐1 and Figure 2.2‐
1):
Roadway Segment B
Roadway Segment B begins at existing SR 79 south of Newport Road. The alignment going
north crosses under Newport Road, then swings easterly and crosses over Patterson
Avenue and Patton Avenue.
Roadway Segment D
Roadway Segment D continues from Segment B in a northeasterly direction, and the
alignment crosses over Domenigoni Parkway, Salt Creek Channel, and Olive Avenue on a
viaduct structure. The alignment then continues north, where it crosses Simpson Road,
then continues over the San Jacinto Branch Line. It then crosses over a Future Street “A”
where a full interchange is proposed, then continues farther north over Stowe Road.
Future Street “A” improvements are to be built by others. This is noted as the Stetson
Avenue/Grand Avenue realignment in the Hemet General Plan.
Roadway Segment H
154
118
Roadway Segment H continues in a northeasterly direction from Segment D or Segment F.
It cuts through the West Hemet Hills, then crosses over California Avenue and Florida
Avenue, where a full interchange is proposed.
Roadway Segment I
Roadway Segment I continues in a northerly direction from Segment G. An overcrossing
is proposed at Devonshire Avenue. For the Preferred Alternative, Build Alternative 1br,
Tres Cerritos Avenue is proposed to be a cul‐de‐sac along the west side of SR 79 with no
direct access to SR 79.
Roadway Segment J
Roadway Segment J continues in a northerly direction from Segment I. A single
undercrossing is proposed that spans over the San Diego Canal, west of Warren Road, and
north of Esplanade Avenue. A full interchange is proposed at Esplanade Avenue. The
alignment then continues northeasterly with an undercrossing at Seventh Street.
Roadway Segment M
Roadway Segment M continues in a northeasterly direction from Segment J or Segment K.
The alignment crosses under Cottonwood Avenue, then takes a long curve to the
northeast and continues parallel to the Casa Loma Canal. It then crosses under Sanderson
Avenue and takes a long curve to the north, where it crosses over the Colorado River
Aqueduct.
Roadway Segment N
Roadway Segment N continues in a northerly direction from Segment L or Segment M. It
crosses over the Ramona Expressway and a future drainage facility, where it ties into
existing SR 79 just south of the San Jacinto River.
Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects Build Alternative 2a
because it does not meet the Project’s objectives to the same extent as the Project and because
the alternatives will not reduce or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts and may, in
fact, result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. Specifically:
Build Alternative 2b does not provide direct access to Winchester Road and does
not maintain east‐west road connections to the community of Winchester. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐41.)
Build Alternative 2b requires more cubic yards of roadway excavation than the
Preferred Alternative, thus resulting in greater air quality, GHG, construction
noise, and surface disturbance impacts than the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38)
Build Alternative 2b displaces more habitat acres for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat,
the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and the California Gnatcatcher than the
Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38.)
While Build Alternative 2b benefits more residential units and displaces fewer
residences, it also requires more residential acquisitions than the Preferred
Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐39.)
155
119
Build Alternative 2b impacts more acres of prime, unique, and important
farmlands than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐40.)
Build Alternative 2b impacts more historic properties, but requires slightly fewer
acres of direct acquisition of the TCP than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 2‐40.)
In summary, Build Alternative 1br meets the criteria used to evaluate the Build
Alternatives better than Build Alternative 2b. Therefore, Build Alternative 2b was rejected by
RCTC in favor of the Project.
7. Design Option 2b1—Roadway Segments B, D, H, I, J, M, and N
Two design options were developed in response to comments from the Winchester
community regarding the height of the profile as initially described for the base condition. Design
Option 2b1 would be on the southern end of the Project near the Winchester community. It
would affect Roadway Segments B, D, and H of Build Alternative 2b. Build Alternative 2b involves
the following roadway segments (Table 2.2‐1 and Figure 2.2‐1):
Roadway Segment B
Roadway Segment B begins at existing SR 79 south of Newport Road. The alignment going
north crosses under Newport Road, then swings easterly and crosses over Patterson
Avenue and Patton Avenue.
A design option has been considered for this segment that would include a northbound
exit ramp and southbound entrance ramp from Newport Road to SR 79.
Roadway Segment D
Roadway Segment D continues from Segment B in a northeasterly direction, and the
alignment crosses over Domenigoni Parkway, Salt Creek Channel, and Olive Avenue on a
viaduct structure. The alignment then continues north, where it crosses Simpson Road,
then continues over the San Jacinto Branch Line. It then crosses over a Future Street “A”
where a full interchange is proposed, then continues farther north over Stowe Road.
Future Street “A” improvements are to be built by others. This is noted as the Stetson
Avenue/Grand Avenue realignment in the Hemet General Plan.
A design option has been considered for this Segment that would lower the vertical profile
through the valley north of Domenigoni Parkway. This would include an at‐grade crossing
at Simpson Road. A proposed new road near Grand Ave would cross over SR 79, where a
full interchange is proposed. SR 79 would continue farther north, with the profile rising
to take the alignment over Stowe Road.
Roadway Segment H
156
120
Roadway Segment H continues in a northeasterly direction from Segment D or Segment F.
It cuts through the West Hemet Hills, then crosses over California Avenue and Florida
Avenue, where a full interchange is proposed.
A design option was considered for this Segment in which the vertical profile is raised
through the West Hemet Hills with a maximum grade of 4.58 percent. This results in less
cut through the hill but still provides enough material to balance the earthwork. Because
the grade exceeds 1.6 percent, a truck climbing lane in the northbound direction would
be required for 5,577 ft.
Roadway Segment I
Roadway Segment I continues in a northerly direction from Segment G. An overcrossing
is proposed at Devonshire Avenue. For the Preferred Alternative, Build Alternative 1br,
Tres Cerritos Avenue is proposed to be a cul‐de‐sac along the west side of SR 79 with no
direct access to SR 79.
Roadway Segment J
Roadway Segment J continues in a northerly direction from Segment I. A single
undercrossing is proposed that spans over the San Diego Canal, west of Warren Road, and
north of Esplanade Avenue. A full interchange is proposed at Esplanade Avenue. The
alignment then continues northeasterly with an undercrossing at Seventh Street.
Roadway Segment M
Roadway Segment M continues in a northeasterly direction from Segment J or Segment K.
The alignment crosses under Cottonwood Avenue, then takes a long curve to the
northeast and continues parallel to the Casa Loma Canal. It then crosses under Sanderson
Avenue and takes a long curve to the north, where it crosses over the Colorado River
Aqueduct.
Roadway Segment N
Roadway Segment N continues in a northerly direction from Segment L or Segment M. It
crosses over the Ramona Expressway and a future drainage facility, where it ties into
existing SR 79 just south of the San Jacinto River.
Finding: Based on the Supporting Explanation below, RCTC rejects Design Option 2b1
because it does not meet the Project’s objectives to the same extent as the Project and because
the alternatives will not reduce or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts and may, in
fact, result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. Specifically:
Design Option 2b1 requires a truck climbing lane, would result in direct impacts to
the San Jacinto Branch Line, would not maintain east‐west road connections with
Winchester Road, and would result in greater air quality, GHG, construction noise,
and surface disturbance impacts than the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐41.)
157
121
Design Option 2b1 requires more cubic yards of roadway excavation than the
Preferred Alternative, thus resulting in greater air quality, GHG, construction
noise, and surface disturbance impacts than the Project. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38)
Design Option 2b1 displaces more habitat acres for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat,
the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and the California Gnatcatcher than the
Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐38.)
While Design Option 2b1 benefits more residential units and displaces fewer
residences, it also requires more residential acquisitions than the Preferred
Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐39.)
Design Option 2b1 impacts more acres of prime, unique, and important farmlands
than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐40.)
Design Option 2b1 impacts more historic properties, but requires slightly fewer
acres of direct acquisition of the TCP than the Preferred Alternative. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 2‐40.)
In summary, Build Alternative 1br meets the criteria used to evaluate the Build
Alternatives better than Design Option 2b1. Therefore, Design Option 2b1 was rejected by RCTC
in favor of the Project.
8. Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative (State CEQA Guidelines
section 15126.6(e)(2)). Table S‐1 (final EIR/EIS, pp. ix‐xix) summarize the impacts of the No Build
Alternative and the Build Alternatives for those environmental topics where there is a difference
in impacts among the alternatives. The No Build Alternative does not result in impacts for any of
the parameters show in Table S‐1. As a result, the No Build Alternative would be the
environmentally superior alternative.
Where the “no project” alternative is environmentally superior, CEQA requires that the
environmentally superior alternative from among the remaining alternative be identified. Based
on the analysis in the FEIR/EIS, and as summarized below, the environmentally superior
alternative from among the remaining options is the Project itself (Alternative 1br).
Table 2.3‐1 includes broad categories with specific criteria for each environmental resources
category and summarizes the relative impacts of the various alternatives. Using findings from
the SR‐79 Realignment project technical studies, the table was developed to present information
to allow for comparison of the alternatives based on these criteria. The No Build Alternative is
not included in the matrix because it does not meet the Project’s purpose and need. (final
EIR/EIS, p. 2‐34.)
Build Alternative 2b was originally included as an “avoidance alternative for biological
resources” subsequent consultation with Native American Tribes indicated that a TCP will be
directly affected, and subsequently cause a Section 4(f) use. The Native American Tribes would
not concur with the Build Alternatives, as designed, to move forward without a redesign. Caltrans
proposed Build Alternative 1br as a feasible and prudent alternative that would minimize adverse
effects of this Section 4(f) use. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐34.)
158
122
Vernal Pool Wetlands are located north of Stowe Road east of the Hemet Hills. All Build
Alternatives avoid direct impacts to this area. Build Alternatives 1a and 1b (including Build
Alternative 1b1 and 1br) would also avoid any potential indirect impacts. In contrast, Build
Alternatives 2a and 2b (including Design Option 2b1) would impact a portion of the upper
watershed of these vernal pools.
Alternative 1br has the fewest direct impacts to federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands, as well as federally listed endangered species found in the vernal pools.
Alternative 1br also has the fewest temporary impacts to the West Hemet Hills. Furthermore,
Alternative 1br results in less impacts to habitat for federally listed species compared to the other
Build Alternatives. (final EIR/EIS, pp. 2‐34 and 2‐35.)
Design Options 1b1 and 2b1 are less desirable, however, because they would both require
a truck‐climbing lane, impact the San Jacinto Branch Line, and would not maintain an east‐west
connection to Winchester Road. Build Alternatives 1a and 2a are also less desirable because they
do not provide any direct access to Winchester Road. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐35.)
Impacts to natural resources are not substantially different among the Build Alternatives.
However, the environmental impacts of Alternative 1br are consistently less than the impacts of
Alternatives 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b. Based on the key evaluation criteria for Build Alternatives in Table
2.3‐1 (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐37) and Table 3.3‐3 (final EIR/EIS, p. 3‐531), Alternative 1br has slightly
less total permanent impacts to federally jurisdictional waters than Build Alternatives 2a and 2b,
and is ranked slightly higher in temporary impacts than the other Build Alternatives. Build
Alternative 1br will remove the Tres Cerritos interchange from the Project design, and therefore,
direct impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered plants will be eliminated. Build
Alternatives 2a, 2b, and Design Option 2b1 could result in potentially significant indirect impacts
to San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior), Spreading navarretia
(Navarretia fossalis), and California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), whereas Build Alternatives
1a, 1b, 1br and Design Option 1b1 would avoid indirect impacts to these species. All Project
alternatives would result in both direct and indirect impacts to designated critical habitat for
spreading navarretia. Direct impacts to critical habitat are 2.3 acres for Build Alternatives 1a, 1b,
and Design Option 1b1, 2.9 acres for Build Alternative 1br, and 2.4 acres for Build Alternatives
2a, 2b, and Design Option 2b1. (final EIR/EIS, p.2‐35.)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), a federally listed endangered species, were
found in the vernal pools north of Stowe Road east of the Hemet Hills. All build alternatives avoid
direct impacts to this area, and Build Alternatives 1a and 1b (including Build Alternative 1b1 and
1br) also avoid any potential indirect impacts. Build Alternatives 2a and 2b (including Design
Option 2b1) would impact a portion of the upper watershed of these vernal pools, resulting in
1.8 acres of indirect impacts to occupied vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. Potentially suitable
habitat is present for three additional federal‐ and or state‐listed threatened and endangered
wildlife species including Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), Quino checkerspot
butterfly (Euphydryas edita quino), and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
159
123
californica). With the design refinements to minimize impacts on the Hemet Hills, Build
Alternative 1br would result in the fewest direct and potential impacts to suitable habitat for
these species. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐35.)
The number of relocations of homes and businesses is about the same with either
alternative. However, Build Alternative 1br has fewer residential relocations at 26 units but
higher residential displacements at 115 displacements, when compared to Build Alternative 2b
and Design Option 2b1 at 29 units and 75 displacements. Build Alternative 1b and Design Option
1b1 would have 37 units with 106 displacements. Alternative 1a would have the highest
acquisitions with 42 units and 134 displacements. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐36.)
Business and employee displacements for Build Alternative 1br would be 26 units
acquired and 105 employees displaced. Build Alternatives 2b and Design Option 2b1 would
require 13 units and 86 displacements. Alternatives 1a and 2a, which would require 14 units and
89, 86 displacements, respectively. Build Alternatives 1b and Design Option 1b1 would each
require 14 units and 90 displacements. Overall, Build Alternative 2b and Design Option 2b1
would require the fewest number of residential and business relocations, and Build Alternatives
1a would require the greatest number of employ displacements. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐36.)
The Build alternatives and design options would all result in the direct use of the TCP. As
a result of consultation, the project team adjusted Build Alternative 1b, which became
Alternative 1br, to minimize adverse impacts the TCP relative to the other build alternatives.
Consequently, it also reduces visual impacts to the West Hemet Hill from the reduction of cut
needed for this alternative. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐36.)
Overall, Alternative 1br would be expected to have less impact to the community of
Winchester because of the redesign of the Newport Road interchange to provide access by
incorporating a traffic signal at the intersection of Newport Road. Alternative 1br requires less
earthwork than the other Build Alternatives. (final EIR/EIS, p. 2‐36.)
Overall, the Project (Alternative 1br) would have fewer significant environmental impacts
than any of the other Build Alternatives.
160
124
SECTION IX
RECIRCULATION OF THE EIR
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) find that no evidence of new significant
impacts and no substantial increases to existing significant impacts as defined by State CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.5 was received by Caltrans or RCTC after the circulation of the Draft
EIR/EIS and the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/SDEIS for the SR‐79 Realignment project. Under
Section 15088.5, a Lead Agency is required to recirculate an EIR only in very limited
circumstances. Specifically, Section 15088.5 requires recirculation only if (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
previous analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but
the project’s proponents decline to adopt it; or (4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and
basically inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment were
precluded.
Following the circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS and the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/SDEIS, none
of the criteria set forth in Section 15088.5 have been met, and RCTC’s decision that no
recirculation of the EIR/EIS is required is fully supported by substantial evidence in the record.
161
125
SECTION X
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) declares that, pursuant to the State
CEQA Guidelines section 15093, RCTC has balanced the benefits of the SR‐79 Realignment project
against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project.
If the benefits of the SR‐79 Realignment project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.”
RCTC declares that the final EIR/EIS prepared by Caltrans for the SR‐79 Realignment project has
identified and discussed significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project. With the
implementation of existing regulations, Mitigation Measures, and other Conditions discussed in
the final EIR/EIS and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP,
provided in Exhibit A), the environmental effects of the SR‐79 Realignment project can be can be
mitigated to less than significant levels, except for unavoidable significant impacts related to:
Aesthetics: Scenic Vistas; Scenic Highways; Visual Character and Quality
Air Quality: Violate Air Quality Standards
Biological Resources: Sensitive or Special Status Species; Wetlands; Wildlife
Movement and Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
Cultural Resources: Historical, Archeological (including tribal cultural resources), and
Paleontological Resources and Geologic Features; Substantial Adverse Change in
Significance of Historical Resource
Noise and Vibration: Noise Standard; Permanent Noise Increase; Temporary Noise
Increase
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous Materials near Schools.
Cumulative Impacts related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Cultural Resources
Although extensive measures avoiding or reducing these effects of the Project on the
environment are provided in the final EIR/EIS, those measures are not sufficient to avoid or
reduce the Project effects described above to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Section
4.2.3 in the final EIR/EIS.)
RCTC declares that, having reduced the significant adverse environmental effects of the SR‐79
Realignment project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures and other
conditions on the Project as listed in the MMRP in Exhibit A, having considered the entire
administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its
unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, RCTC finds that each and every one of the
following social, economic, technical, and environmental benefits of the SR‐79 Realignment
project individually outweigh and override each and every one of the potential unavoidable
significant adverse impacts of the Project:
162
126
The Project will help to prevent the failure of existing roadway facilities in future
years. Specifically, the existing SR 79 facility has inadequate capacity to
accommodate both local and regional travel demand associated with the
projected growth (residential, retail, and commercial development) and regional
attractions (Diamond Valley Lake) in the San Jacinto Valley area through the
planning year 2040. The traffic analysis conducted for the Project found that with
no project, in 2040, the SR 79 facility would operate at LOS D or worse over more
than half of the entire route in the study area, even after ultimate general plan
classification roadway improvements have been made. The Project will help to
prevent those future roadway failures by alleviating traffic congestion and
providing a more efficient route for trips through the San Jacinto Valley.
The Project will help ensure that regional traffic does not continue to compete
with local traffic for the limited capacity that exists on current roads. Specifically,
with no project, in 2040, the SR 79 facility would operate at LOS D or worse over
more than half of the entire route in the study area, even after ultimate general
plan classification roadway improvements have been made. Existing SR 79 and
the local street system do not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the
number of trips that are expected in the Project area in 2040. Because of the
configuration of existing SR 79, regional traffic currently diverts from SR 79 to
travel on more direct north‐south routes on the local road network, such as
Sanderson Avenue and Warren Road. (final EIR/EIS, Sections 1.1.5.1 and 3.1.6).
The Project will eliminate the currently existing circuitous alignment and slowing
that results at the many existing at‐grade intersections. Specifically, the current
alignment of SR 79 does not facilitate the movement of local and regional traffic
between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road. SR 79 is circuitous, with
numerous at‐grade intersections, residential, and commercial driveways, traffic
signals, and other impediments to efficient travel. The numerous direct access
points to and from SR 79 result in conflicts between local and regional traffic that
degrade the operational characteristics of the facility. With no viable alternative
facilities, Sanderson Avenue and Warren Road have become default north‐south
routes for regional traffic, thereby adding regional traffic onto local streets. This
regional traffic, particularly heavy trucks, is not consistent with the pavement
section and land use on these local roads. (final EIR/EIS, p. 1‐10.)
The Project will separate traffic traveling on SR 79 and SR 74, allowing for better
traffic flow, instead of consolidating traffic onto the existing 7‐mile co‐located
facility that currently exists. Specifically, within Hemet, the north‐south corridor
of SR 79 overlaps with the east‐west corridor of SR 74 for approximately 7 mi on
Florida Avenue. Much of this portion of SR 74/Florida Avenue intersects with local
streets that lead directly to residential neighborhoods and provides access to
various businesses. As a result, the north‐south regional traffic on SR 79 is mixed
with the east‐west regional traffic on SR 74/Florida Avenue and with local traffic.
163
127
Although legal, this type of traffic is not compatible with the primarily residential
land uses through which it passes. (final EIR/EIS, p. 1‐10.)
The Project’s geometric design will support the movement of trucks exceeding 40‐
feet in length, consistent with the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA).
Currently, and avoid the continued diversion of those vehicles onto Sanderson
Avenue. Specifically, SR 79 is a Terminal Access (TA) state highway from San
Jacinto Street to Domenigoni Parkway and north of Gilman Springs Road. The
portion of SR 79 between these locations is an Advisory route for KPRA 30 (trucks
30 ft long). The geometrics of the route are inadequate for longer vehicles such
as are common for local and regional freight movement. In Municipal Code
10.08.040, San Jacinto allows vehicles that exceed 14,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) on Sanderson Avenue from the Ramona Expressway
southbound to the southernmost city limits. In municipal code section 78‐61,
Hemet allows vehicles that exceed 14,000 pounds GVWR on Sanderson Avenue
from the northernmost city limit to Domenigoni Parkway. Sanderson Avenue,
which passes through primarily residential areas, has become a route for large
regional trucks due to the inadequacy of SR 79. (final EIR/EIS, p. 1‐11.) In general,
the responsibility for providing roads that serve regional traffic, particularly truck
traffic, is a state and federal responsibility. SR 79 through Hemet and San Jacinto
is a state route that is a designated truck route, but geometric deficiencies have
resulted in the road being restricted for longer trucks. Because other alternatives
are not available, local authorities allow Surface Transportation Assistance Act
(STAA) vehicles up to 14,000 pounds on Sanderson Avenue and Warren Road,
although these local streets were not designed for heavy trucks and will
deteriorate more quickly than an appropriately designed highway. (final EIR/EIS,
p. 1‐11.)
The Project will help to reduce accident rates on the SR‐79, thus contributing to a
safer roadway with far fewer fatalities. Specifically, according to the most recent
data available from Caltrans Traffic Accident Surveillance & Analysis System
(TASAS) Table B, the actual accident rate on SR 79 between Domenigoni Parkway
and Gilman Springs Road is 1.36, which is 47 percent higher than the statewide
average rate of 0.92 for similar facilities. A summary of the accident rate and types
of accidents on SR 79 in the study area for a 3‐year period from January 1, 2011,
through December 31, 2013, is provided in Tables 1.1‐4 and 1.1‐5 of the final
EIR/EIS. (final EIR/EIS, p. 1‐9.) Existing SR 79 serves as a commuter and regional
route linking rural areas of San Diego County to the communities in western
Riverside County. The portion of SR 79 proposed for realignment also serves
regional traffic, connecting Winchester, Hemet, and San Jacinto to Temecula and
Murrieta in the south and Beaumont in the north. The use of SR 79 is changing
because of widespread and rapid growth in the area. The level of service during
certain periods decreases to a point that traffic demand exceeds the capacity of
the existing facility. Inadequate control of access has contributed to disorderly
164
128
and inefficient movement of vehicles. In addition, injury accident rates on most
of SR 79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road are higher than
the comparable statewide average.
The Project’s construction will provide many jobs and employment opportunity
for skilled labor during the Project’s construction, thus helping to offset the
jobs/house imbalance currently faced by the Inland Empire.
The Project’s implementation will be the continued fulfillment of the voters’ will
as expressed through the voters’ approval of Measure A and a related Expenditure
Plan that specifically identified the Project.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, RCTC has balanced the benefits of the
Project against the unavoidable environmental adverse effects and concludes, based upon the
whole record, that each and every one of the above‐described economic, social, technical, and
environmental benefits of the SR‐79 Realignment project individually outweigh each and every
one of the unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the Project.
165
129
SECTION XI
CONSIDERATION OF EIR
As required in State CEQA Guidelines section 15096(a), the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) finds that it has reviewed and considered the final EIR/EIS in
evaluating the SR‐79 Realignment project, that the final EIR/EIS is an accurate and objective
statement that fully complies with the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, and
that the final EIR/EIS reflects RCTC’s independent judgment.
RCTC declares that no new significant information as defined by State CEQA Guidelines
section 15088.5 was received by either Caltrans or RCTC after circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS and
Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/SDEIS nor added by either Caltrans or RCTC to the EIR/EIS that
would require recirculation.
RCTC has considered the final EIR/EIS based on, without limitation, the
following finding and conclusions:
A. Finding: The significant environmental impacts set forth in Sections IV and V of
this Resolution have been identified in the final EIR/EIS and will require mitigation, but cannot be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
B. Conclusions:
1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the SR‐79
Realignment project have been identified in the final EIR/EIS and, with
implementation of the Mitigation Measures and other conditions in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, in Exhibit A), impacts will be mitigated
to a less than significant level, except for the impacts listed in Sections IV and V
of this Resolution.
2. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived
from the SR‐79 Realignment project override and make infeasible mitigation
measures and/or conditions beyond those incorporated into the Project as
provided in the MMRP.
3. Other reasonable alternatives to the SR‐79 Realignment project that could feasibly
achieve the basic goals and objectives of the Project have been considered and
rejected in favor of the SR‐79 Realignment project.
166
130
SECTION XII
ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Riverside County Transportation
Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached
to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation
measures and conditions as set forth here and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.
167
131
SECTION XIII
PROJECT APPROVAL
Based on the entire record before the Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC), including the above findings and all written evidence presented to Caltrans and RCTC,
RCTC hereby approves the SR‐79 Realignment project in its limited role as responsible agency
under CEQA and authorizes staff to engage in activities for the funding and construction of the
Project.
168
132
SECTION XIV
CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
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, California 92501. The custodian for these
records is Jennifer Harmon, Clerk to the Board of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section
21081.6.
169
133
SECTION XV
STAFF DIRECTION
The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby directs staff to prepare,
execute, and file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk’s office and the Office
of Planning and Research within five (5) working days of adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission held on the 26 day of January, 2017.
_____________________________________
Chair
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
I, Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Riverside
County Transportation Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting thereof held on the 26th day
of January, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_______________________________
Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
170
134
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD)
171
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 1 of 50
Appendix E Environmental Commitments Record
The purpose of the Environmental Commitments Record (ECR) provided in this appendix is to assign
responsibility for the implementation, monitoring, and timing of each avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measure that has been identified to address impacts of the proposed Project.
The ECR lists each of the environmental topics evaluated and the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures. Two columns in the table list the timing/phase of the measures and the party responsible for ensuring
that each measure is implemented. The next two columns are blank to allow the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to add the actions taken to
implement the measures and the verification date of each measure. These columns will be used as a reference for
verifying that each measure is implemented and that ongoing measures are regularly checked.
172
Appendix E – Environmental Commitments Record
2 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
This page intentionally left blank.
173
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 3 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Land Use
Existing and Future Land Use
LU-1. City of Hemet General Plan and Build Alternative
1a. South of Florida Avenue in the Hemet Planning
Area, Build Alternative 1a is not consistent with the
Locally Preferred Alternative identified in the Hemet
General Plan. Differences between Build Alternative 1a
and the General Plan of the City of Hemet would have to
be resolved before the Project moves forward. This will
require a General Plan amendment as proposed in the
2030 Hemet General Plan.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
LU-2. City of San Jacinto General Plan and Build
Alternative 1a. Build Alternative 1a incorporates
Highway Segment “L” which is not consistent with the
Locally Preferred Alternative in the General Plan of the
City of San Jacinto. Differences between Build
Alternative 1a and the General Plan of the City of San
Jacinto would have to be resolved before the Project
moves forward. This will require an amendment to the
San Jacinto General Plan as the San Jacinto General
Plan Implementation Program anticipates.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
LU-3. City of Hemet General Plan and Build Alternative
1b and Design Option 1b1. South of Florida Avenue,
Build Alternative 1b, 1br, and Design Option 1b1 are not
consistent with the Locally Preferred Alternative in to
2030 Hemet General Plan. The differences would have
to be resolved before the Project moves forward. This
will require a General Plan amendment as proposed in
the 2030 Hemet General Plan and discussed in more
detail above.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
LU-4. City of Hemet General Plan and Build Alternative
2a. South of Florida Avenue and north of Hidden
Springs Road, Build Alternative 2a is not consistent with
the Locally Preferred Alternative in the 2030 Hemet
General Plan. The differences would have to be
resolved before the Project moves forward. This will
require a General Plan amendment, which was proposed
in the 2030 Hemet General Plan and which is discussed
in detail above.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
174
4 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
LU-5. City of San Jacinto General Plan and Build
Alternative 2a. Build Alternative 2a incorporates
Roadway Segment “L” which is not consistent with the
Locally Preferred Alternative in the General Plan of the
City of San Jacinto. Differences between Build
Alternative 2a and the General Plan of the City of San
Jacinto would have to be resolved before the Project
moves forward. This will require a General Plan
amendment as was proposed in the San Jacinto General
Plan.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
LU-6. County of Riverside Circulation System. After the
ROD is issued for the Project, and as part of final design
of Design Option 1b1 or 2b1, RCTC will coordinate the
planned access restrictions on Olive Avenue and
Simpson Road with the County of Riverside so that the
County can determine appropriate actions to
accommodate a change to the approved Circulation
Element of the Riverside County General Plan.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
LU-7 General Plan Consistency. Upon the selection of a
Preferred Alternative and approval of the SR 79
Realignment Project for implementation, the SR 79
Realignment Project Manager will request that the
County of Riverside, the City of San Jacinto, and
community of Hemet amend their respective General
Plans to reflect the final SR 79 Realignment, interchange
locations, and modification of land use designations for
property that will be acquired for the project.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
Consistent with Local Plans and Programs
LU-1. City of Hemet General Plan and Build
Alternative 1a.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
LU-2. City of San Jacinto General Plan and Build
Alternative 1a.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
LU-3. City of Hemet General Plan and Build
Alternative 1b and Design Option 1b1.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
LU-4. City of Hemet General Plan and Build
Alternative 2a
Preconstruction
LU-5. City of San Jacinto General Plan and Build
Alternative 2a.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
LU-6. County of Riverside Circulation System. RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
175
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 5 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
LU-7. General Plan Consistency. RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
Parks and Recreational Areas
NO-1. Installation of Recommended Noise Barriers
Shown to be Feasible and Reasonable. RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer
Design, Construction
LU-8. Public Notification of Alternative San Jacinto
Parks.
RCTC Project Manager Design, Preconstruction
BIO-8. Dust Mitigation. The Project will minimize dust by
regularly watering active construction areas.
RCTC Project Manager Construction
Farmlands/Timberlands
AG-1. Maintain Access to Existing Farmlands. Access
to existing farmlands, all remaining active fields, and
farm units will be maintained during construction for farm-
related vehicles. Long-term indirect impacts to farmlands
will be minimized by modifying driveways and farm lanes
in cooperation with the landowners to maintain access to
parcel remnants. Modifications will be made to minimize
the cost and inconvenience to the landowner. Such
efforts will reduce the impacts to the farmland and the
producers, as well as reducing the Project right-of-way
acquisition costs.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
AG-2. Coordination with Owners. Coordination and
implementing activities will take place with property
owners to notify them of any short-term loss of services,
such as water and electricity, or other requirements for
maintaining farming activities. Timing of any short-term
loss of service will occur during times that will not disrupt
farming operations.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
AG-3. Notification of Williamson Act Land Acquisition.
The Department and RCTC will notify the CDC of any
acquired Williamson Act lands within 10 days of the
acquisition.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Environmental Task
Lead
Preconstruction
176
6 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
Community Character and Cohesion
COM-1. Establish Pedestrian/Bike/Equestrian Paths.
The Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC) will be responsible for the design of
pedestrian/bike/equestrian paths for the East Newport
Road overcrossing and Olive Avenue and Stowe Road
undercrossings of realigned SR 79 Design Option 1b1
and 2b1 to facilitate community interaction and cohesion
within the Rural Winchester Community.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer
Design
COM-2. School District Coordination. RCTC will be
responsible for contacting the Hemet and San Jacinto
Unified School Districts to confirm the school attendance
areas that would be bisected by the Project. Once
affected schools are identified, coordination will be
conducted to avoid disruption of access.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Preconstruction,
Construction
COM-3. Traffic Management Plan for Access. The
Traffic Management Plan prepared for the Project will
identify traffic control measures (construction cones,
signs, etc.) and detour routes to manage circulation
during construction and maintain adequate access to
community services. It will also include outreach and
public communication plans.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer
Design, Preconstruction
COM-4. Recycling during Operations. The Department
will be responsible for managing Project operation and
maintenance activities to ensure that refuse, debris, and
landscape trimmings will be reused or recycled at a
suitable recycling facility as appropriate. This will reduce
the amount of material disposed at Lamb Canyon
Landfill.
The Department
Project Manager in
conjunction with RCTC
Project Manager,
Resident Engineer,
and Department
maintenance staff
Construction
Relocation
RELOC-1. Relocation Assistance. The Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC), as the
agency responsible for relocations, will implement and
administer, with Department oversight, the California
Department of Transportation Relocation Assistance
Program to provide relocation assistance or
compensation to eligible persons and businesses in
accordance with the federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as
amended (42 United States Code Sections 4601 4655)
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Right-of-Way
Staff
Preconstruction
177
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 7 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
and the California Relocation Act (California Government
Code, Section 7260 et. seq.).
Utilities
UTIL-1. Coordination with Utility Companies. During
final design, RCTC will be responsible for conducting
early coordination with utility companies to determine
which utilities need to be relocated outside the proposed
Project ROW. The Project Engineer will seek:
(1) To avoid utility relocations
(2) If relocation is necessary, to relocate utilities across
the SR 79 right-of-way or within other existing public
rights-of-way and/or easements
(3) If relocation is outside existing or proposed public
right of way and/or easements, to relocate in a
manner that will minimize environmental impacts
from construction and ongoing maintenance and
repair activities
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer
Design, Preconstruction
UTIL-2. Roadway Segment G Utility Tower Relocations.
RCTC will be responsible for the relocation of the two
utility towers within Roadway Segment G. This would
require a new site that would provide for the same
coverage as achieved by the current towers.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
UTIL-3. Temporary Detour for Railroad. . This measure
will be required during construction of either of the design
options. Given the infrequency of rail operations along
the San Jacinto Branch Line, at least 2 weeks prior to the
time when annual train operations must cross SR 79,
RCTC will contact the Department in writing with detailed
operational requirements (date, time, etc.) for the train
crossing. In accordance with these stated requirements,
the Department will design and implement a temporary
detour from SR 79 onto local streets, including
appropriate road blocks and signage, for no more than 8
consecutive nighttime hours in accordance with all
Department design and safety standards. Once the
temporary detour is in place, the Department will remove
the portions of SR 79 that obstruct the railroad ROW, so
that the train may safely cross the SR 79, in accordance
with all applicable safety standards. Once the train has
successfully crossed SR 79, the SR 79 roadway will be
returned to predisturbance conditions consistent with all
applicable Department design and safety standards, prior
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Department Oversight
Project Manager,
Department Engineers,
and Department
construction staff
Postconstruction
178
8 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
to being reopened to public travel. To address the
impacts to traffic, a Transportation Management Plan will
be developed to identify, sign, and/or notify the general
public about the closure and detour routes. In addition,
emergency service providers will be notified about
closure locations to allow them to identify alternate
routes for emergency response.
UTIL-4. Notification of Underground Service Alert. The
construction contractor will notify Underground Service
Alert (USA) prior to Project construction to ensure that
the location of all utility lines within the Project ROW are
correctly marked prior to groundbreaking. Coordination
with USA also would identify the presence of previously
unknown or unmarked utilities, ensuring proper
relocation and avoidance of existing utilities in Utility
Relocation Area 2.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Preconstruction,
Construction
UTIL-5. Utility Relocation. Prior to construction, RCTC
and the construction contractor will coordinate with the
utility providers responsible for utility relocations to avoid
interruption or disruption of service and in accordance
with the Traffic Management Plan prepared for the
Project to avoid impacts to circulation and emergency
response times.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Preconstruction,
Construction
Emergency Services
SERV-1. Coordination with Emergency Responders
Prior to Opening Year (2020). Prior to Opening Year
(2020), RCTC will coordinate with the emergency
responders listed below to ensure that, if necessary,
response routes can be established or updated and
additional personnel can be secured to ensure that
emergency response in the Project area continues to
meet applicable requirements.
• California Highway Patrol
• City of Hemet Fire Department
• City of Hemet Police Department
• Riverside County Fire Department (including contracted
fire protection for the City of San Jacinto)
• Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (including
contracted police protection for the City of San Jacinto)
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer
Design, Preconstruction
179
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 9 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
SERV-2. Coordination of Temporary Detours with
Emergency Responders. Prior to and during
construction, RCTC and the construction contractor will
coordinate all temporary detour plans with the
emergency responders listed below to ensure that, if
necessary, affected response routes can be established
or updated and additional personnel can be secured to
ensure that emergency response in the Project area
continues to meet applicable requirements.
• California Highway Patrol
• City of Hemet Fire Department
• City of Hemet Police Department
• Riverside County Fire Department (including
contracted fire protection for the City of San Jacinto)
• Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (including
contracted police protection for the City of San
Jacinto)
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer
Design, Preconstruction
Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
LU-6. County of Riverside Circulation System. RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Preconstruction,
Construction
UTIL-3. Temporary Detour for Railroad. RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Department Oversight
Project Manager,
Department Engineers
and Department
construction staff
Postconstruction
Visual/Aesthetics
VIS-1. Corridor Master Plan. Early in the planning and
design of the Project, a Corridor Master Plan will be
developed to unify all freeway improvements, including
the roadway, structures, and roadside, to result in a
collaborative, distinctive, cohesive integration of the
corridor into the surrounding communities and the natural
environment. The Corridor Master Plan will include
roadside design and maintenance, vegetation
management, noise barriers, retaining walls, storm water
treatments, median barriers, guard rails, bridges, light
pollution, preservation of historic and cultural features to
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
180
10 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
ensure the visual cohesiveness of the corridor. It will
include the identification of collaborative opportunities for
the Department and others. The Corridor Master Plan
should be specific and not only conceptual in design.
Resources for development of the Corridor Master Plan
will be provided from this parent project's roadway
contract.
VIS-2. Mitigation Planting/Highway Planting. Mitigation
planting/highway planting will be provided prior to the
end of construction for each phase of the Project. It is
expected that the year requirements for the plant
establishment period will be set in the Corridor Master
Plan based on the species selected, but will not be less
than a 3-year minimum. The vegetative requirements
may vary. Planting and plant establishment will be
funded by this parent project's roadway contract.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-3. Plantings to Bring Down Apparent Scale. The
planting of trees, vines, and shrubs will be provided for
the "softening" of structures, including walls and bridges,
and to bring down their apparent scale.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer, the
Landscape Architect,
and the Resident
Engineer
Design, Construction
VIS-4. Minimize Visual Impacts with Revegetation.
Visual impacts will be minimized by revegetation, which
will be achieved by planting trees, shrubs, and
groundcover at interchanges and in more developed
areas. Less developed, scenic, and rural areas will be
revegetated to reproduce adjacent native cover. Slope
areas adjacent to native cover will include container
planting in addition to seeding to minimize visual
impacts.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-5. Textured Noise Barriers. Noise barriers and
retaining walls will be heavily textured and colored a
midrange to dark color that corresponds to that of
adjacent soil. Walls facing public-use areas (streets,
private yards, or recreation) will be heavily textured and
colored a midrange to dark neutral color to minimize light
reflection. Walls higher than 8 feet (ft) and longer than
30 ft will feature a wall cap and panel with detailing or
site specific designs such as local or historic references.
These or other specific enhancements approved by the
District Landscape Architect will minimize/mitigate
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design, Construction
181
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 11 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
community impacts and restore visual scale to the
surroundings.
VIS-6. Aesthetic Treatment to Structures. Aesthetic
treatment to structures will provide opportunities for
community identification and will be developed
collaboratively in the Corridor Master Plan.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design, Construction
VIS-7. Planting on Structures Such as Retaining Walls
and Bridges to Minimize Glare. Landscaping will entail
planting trees adjacent to concrete structures and vines
on the structures themselves to minimize reflected light
and glare.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-8. Concentrations of Trees and Shrubs at
Interchanges. Landscaping will entail planting
concentrations of trees and shrubs at interchanges, with
less numerous plantings in the areas in between.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design, Construction
VIS-9. Screening Treatments in Winchester. Portions of
the Project alignment visible from schools and parks or
Roadway Segment A in the community of Winchester will
receive screening treatments, including the planting of
trees, shrubs, and/or vines.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design, Construction
VIS-10. Noise Barrier Screening in Winchester. Noise
barriers built at locations visible from parks or schools or
within Winchester will be screened with trees, shrubs, or
vines to minimize their visual impact.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Landscape Architect,
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
VIS-11. Prepare Contour Grading Plans. Consistent
with Section 304.4 of the Department’s Highway Design
Manual, prepare contour grading plans for all major cut
slopes that provide for the rounding of the tops and ends
of the cut slopes where the material is other than solid
rock. Where the material is solid rock, a layer of earth or
rock rubble overlying the rock will be rounded.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Landscape Architect,
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
VIS-12. Cut Slope Design. To ensure that the cut
slopes have a more natural appearance, the design of
these slopes will be analyzed further and revised. In the
current design, each of the slopes consists of a series of
12-ft -wide benches intended to catch debris; these wide
and regular benches create a somewhat artificial
appearing slope. In the redesign, a single wide bench
will be provided at the base of each cut slope to catch
debris, and the regular series of wide benches on the
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design, Construction
182
12 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
slopes will be replaced by a series of 1-ft to 2-ft -wide
steps intended to create niches for the establishment of
vegetation. The design of these steps will be consistent
with the guidance provided by Section 304.5 of the
Department’s Highway Design Manual, which
recommends that they be irregular, varying by 20 percent
in height. In addition, at the ends of the cuts, the steps
will be designed to wrap around the rounded transitions
to appear more natural.
VIS-13. Over-Excavate Slopes. Where feasible, over-
excavate slopes cut into solid rock by 4 ft and back fill
with rock rubble. This will create a more natural
appearance for the texture of slopes and will provide
more opportunities for vegetation to become established.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Landscape Architect,
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
VIS-14. Create Artificial Draws. On large cut slopes,
create artificial draws (small depressions that extend up
the slope and serve as drainage ways) that make visual
sense in terms of their relationship to the surrounding
topographic patterns. These artificial draws will be
designed to break the cuts up into smaller visual units
and to make the cut look less like an engineered slope.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer
Design
VIS-15. Weathering of Exposed Rock. On cut slopes
where the color of the exposed rock contrasts
substantially with the color of the rock on the nearby
slope areas, use a metallic oxide spray to artificially
weather the surfaces of the newly exposed rock.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-16. Revegetate Cut Slopes. Use hydroseeding and
other planting methods, where feasible, on cut slopes to
initiate the longer term process of natural slope
revegetation.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-17. Erosion Control. Design the fill slopes to
incorporate erosion control measures in a way that is
effective in preventing erosion and that leaves the slopes
as natural appearing as possible.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-18. Hydroseed Fill Slopes. Hydroseed the fill slopes
to establish a vegetative cover of native plants/grasses.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
183
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 13 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
VIS-19. Texturize Fill Slopes. Incorporate rock rubble
onto the surfaces of the fill slopes so that they have a
highly textured natural appearance.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-20. Revegetate Fill Slopes. Make strategic
plantings of aesthetically and ecologically appropriate
shrubs and trees on the fill slopes to visually break up
large expanses of slope, to visually integrate the slopes
into their surroundings, and to compensate for the loss of
more distant views. The precise locations of these
plantings will be based on detailed analyses conducted
in preparing the Corridor Master Plan and will conform to
Department landscape design guidelines and the
standard Department budget prescription for projects of
this type.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-21. Benched Slopes. Where slopes of 20 ft or more
need to be steepened, a combination of 4:1 and 2:1
transition benches will be constructed as feasible to
optimize the opportunity for vegetation to be established.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-22. Fill Slope Design. Available topsoil
(approximately 1.0 ft) and weathered rocks and boulders
within the right-of-way will be separated and stockpiled
for use in the finish grading of fill slopes, where feasible,
to enhance aesthetics or vegetation reestablishment.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-23. Earthen Basins. Earthen basins and other
water quality treatment facilities will be designed with
undulating outlines and sited with a variety of appropriate
plant and inert material to blend with the surrounding
terrain and landscape, rather than creating basins that
require screening. The need for additional right-of-way
to accommodate the facilities will also be considered.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-24. Nonreflective Materials. Every effort will be
made to select permanent fencing material for the
Project that has a dark and dulled finish.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-25. Overcrossing Design. Based on detailed
analyses conducted during early planning and design,
the design team, including landscape architects, will
refine the design of the overcrossing structures to make
them appear as light and open as feasible and
incorporate design elements that will make them visually
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
184
14 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
engaging and relate them to their settings. Overcrossing
design elements will provide opportunities for community
identification.
VIS-26. Noise Barrier Design Treatments. Noise
barriers will incorporate design treatments to make them
attractive landscape elements and to integrate them into
views toward the expressway and from the surrounding
area.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-27. Noise Barrier Landscaping. Landscaping will be
implemented in front of noise barriers, in pedestrian
areas, and where feasible in other areas to visually break
up and soften the expanses of barrier surfaces.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
VIS-28. Noise Barrier Surfaces. Noise barrier surfaces
will be textured to avoid graffiti.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Construction
VIS-29. Lighting. Project operational lighting will comply
with Riverside County Ordinance 655, which regulates
night light pollution up to 45 miles from the Palomar
Observatory.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Landscape Architect
Design
Cultural Resources
CR-1. Cultural Materials Discovered during
Construction. Although not expected, if cultural materials
are discovered during construction, all earth-moving
activity within and around the immediate discovery area
will be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess
the nature and significance of the find. The
Archaeological Monitoring and Post-Review Discovery
Plan (Post-Review Plan) (Attachment E of the MOA),
prepared by RCTC, in consultation with Caltrans, SHPO,
and the Consulting Tribes, will guide the treatment of
new discoveries. The Post-Review Plan details
guidelines for: developing an archaeological sensitivity
model for discovery of unknown archaeological sites;
archaeological resource monitoring/observation in the
vicinity of known sites, and areas of sensitivity;
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit
identification of archaeological discoveries; and protocols
for sampling, evaluation, and treatment of post-review
discoveries
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Caltrans Project
Archaeologist
Construction
185
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 15 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
CR-2. Archaeological and Native American Monitoring
Known archaeological sites, portions of the TCP, and
other culturally sensitive areas will be monitored during
construction by professional archaeologists and Native
American monitors, as detailed in the Archaeological
Monitoring and Post-Review Discovery Plan (Attachment
E of the MOA). Prior to construction, a Draft Monitoring
Agreement will be prepared as a subsequent document
to the MOA. The Draft Monitoring Agreement will provide
the details regarding how the monitoring will proceed.
Aspects of the Native American monitoring program will
be listed and described.
Caltrans shall implement the plan of action regarding the
potential discovery of Native American burials, human
remains, cremations, and associated grave goods, in
accordance with the law and as detailed in the Post-
Review Plan (Attachment E).
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Caltrans Project
Archaeologist
Construction
CR-3. Discovery of Human Remains. Although not
expected, if human remains are discovered, State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that further
disturbances and activities shall cease within 60 feet of the
remains or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and
the county coroner contacted. Caltrans shall implement the
plan of action regarding the potential discovery of Native
American burials, human remains, cremations, and
associated grave goods, in accordance with the law and as
detailed in the Post Review Plan (Attachment E of the
MOA). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American,
the coroner will notify the NAHC, who will then notify the
MLD. At this time, the person who discovered the remains
will contact Caltrans so that they may work with the MLD
on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains.
Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as
applicable.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Caltrans Project
Archaeologist
Construction
CR-4. Establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
An ESA will be established for archaeological sites and
other areas of cultural sensitivity identified in the,
Environmentally Sensitive Area Action Plan (ESA Action
Plan) (Attachment F of the MOA), prepared by RCTC, in
consultation with Caltrans, SHPO, and the Consulting
Tribes. The ESA Action Plan describes the Protocols to be
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Caltrans Project
Archaeologist
Final EIR/EIS, Design,
Construction
186
16 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
followed for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs)
established to prevent inadvertent adverse effects to
historic properties and cultural resources during project
construction. The ESA will consist of areas within and near
the limits of construction where access is prohibited or
limited for the preservation of the archaeological sites;
ESAs will be fenced and monitored during construction to
ensure a 60 foot buffer. No work shall be conducted within
the ESA. All designated ESAs and fencing limits will be
shown on final design plans and appropriate fencing
requirements included in the PS&E. Fencing will consist of
high visibility fencing material and will be 4 feet high. The
archaeological monitor who meets the Secretary of Interior
Professional Standards for prehistoric and historical
archaeology (i.e., meets Caltrans PQS qualifications) shall
monitor the placement of the ESA fencing, inspect the
fencing periodically throughout the construction period,
order replacement of fencing (if needed), and monitor
removal of fencing at the end of construction.
CR-5 Preparation of a Historic Context for the PPAD.
The RCTC, in consultation with Caltrans, SHPO, and the
Consulting Tribes shall prepare a Historic Context and
Archaeological Research Design for a Potential Prehistoric
Archaeological District in the San Jacinto Valley Vicinity,
State Route 79 Realignment Project, Riverside County,
California, focused on archaeological resources in the
Study Area defined for the SR 79 Project Cultural
Landscape and Settlement Patterns Analysis as part of the
Archaeological Evaluation Report (Eddy et al. 2014). An
annotated outline of the PPAD study is provided as
Attachment C to the MOA. The Consulting Tribes’
participation and consultation during the development of
the PPAD study will be guided by the provisions in
Attachment C of the MOA. The PPAD study will be
completed prior to the start of any construction activities.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
Caltrans Project
Archaeologist
Design
CR-6 Spatial and Visual Analysis of Elements of the
PPAD. Prior to construction activities, the RCTC will
conduct spatial and visual analysis of bedrock milling
features within a sample of the 24 bedrock milling
components that collectively contribute to the significance
of the PPAD. The results will be analyzed for cultural
patterning. An annotated outline of the bedrock milling
station analysis is provided as Attachment D of the MOA.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Caltrans Project
Archaeologist
Design
187
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 17 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
The field observations will be completed prior to the start of
any construction activities.
CR-7 Photogrammetric Documentation of Elements of
the PPAD. Prior to construction activities, the RCTC will
use photogrammetry to document a sample of the 24
bedrock milling components that collectively contribute to
the significance of the PPAD. Close-range
photogrammetry will be used to develop 3D models of all
features that will be directly impacted by construction.
Spherical panoramas will also be used to create immersive
virtual tours of the sample of milling components subject to
visual and spatial analysis (CR-4, above). Video disks will
be provided to all consulting parties to the MOA and filed
with the California Historical Resources Information
System, prior to the start of any construction activities.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Caltrans Project
Archaeologist
Design
CR-8 Support for NRHP Nomination of the TCP. The
RCTC, in consultation with Caltrans and the SHPO, will
assist the Consulting Tribes in preparing documentation
that may be included as part of a formal National Register
Nomination of the TCP, including Chéexayam
Pum’wáppivu (Seven Sisters), ‘Anó΄ Potma (Coyote’s
Mouth), and the intervening valley.. Drawing from
ethnographic information compiled in the Archaeological
Evaluation Report (Eddy et al. 2014) that documents the
significance of the TCP, and in consultation with the
Consulting Tribes, additional ethnographic research will be
conducted by a qualified ethnographer. The RCTC will
document the existing condition of the TCP prior to
construction. The RCTC will also compile existing
information and attempt to obtain additional information
from Consulting Tribes and archival repositories and will
also research and gather information about the ownership
of parcels within the proposed TCP. Because of the private
ownership of the majority of the parcels, there is no
guarantee that these efforts will result in the listing of the
TCP on the National Register. RCTC will provide all
documentation to the Consulting Tribes prior to the start of
any construction activities.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Caltrans Project
Archaeologist
Design
CR-9 Collaboration on Reports. All documentation,
reports, and publications produced as a result of the
studies performed pursuant to Mitigation Measures CR-5
through CR-8 will formally credit all contributors and will be
provided to all consulting parties for review and comment.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Caltrans Project
Archaeologist
Design, Construction
188
18 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
If information provided by a consulting tribe is included in a
proposed publication or professional symposium, the
consulting tribe will be notified and invited to collaborate on
the article or paper, or if they prefer, prepare a separate
paper for publication or presentation.
Hydrology and Floodplain
HYDRA-1. Construct Drainage and Flood Control
Facilities. Construct Drainage and Flood Control
Facilities in accordance with Department and FEMA
guidelines to convey the onsite and offsite flows along
and through SR 79.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
HYDRA-2. Complete a Letter of Map Revision. The
Design Engineer shall complete a Conditional Letter of
Map Revision (CLOMR) after the design has been
finalized and shall complete a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) after construction is finished.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
HYDRA-3. Coordinate with Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD).
Any work that affects District facilities or storm drains will
be coordinated with the RCFC&WCD during final design.
An encroachment permit from the RCFC&WCD shall be
obtained for any construction that impacts their facilities.
Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff
WQ-1. Construction Best Management Practices in
Compliance with Project Planning and Design Guide
(PPDG), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Standard
Special Provisions (SSP). The contractor will use a
combination of BMPs that are acceptable and approved
by the Department and that comply with the PPDG,
SWMP, the Project-specific SWPPP, and any applicable
Department SSPs to minimize impacts associated with
runoff and polluted water.
Information about design, placement, and applicability of
construction site BMPs can be found in the Construction
Site BMP Manual and Section 4 of the PPDG. For fill
slopes steeper than 4:1, an Erosion Control Plan
prepared by or approved by a District Landscape
Architect is required, per Caltrans, Storm Water Quality
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
189
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 19 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
Handbooks: Project Planning and Design Guide, May
2007b.
WQ-2. Revegetation. Where vegetation is grubbed,
cleared, or severely damaged or cut back, replacement
vegetation will be provided, when feasible, in accordance
with applicable standards and guidelines.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Landscape Architect,
Project Engineer, and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
WQ-3. Disturbed Slope Stabilization. Following
construction, disturbed areas will be stabilized through
permanent revegetation or other means, per the
requirement of the Construction General Permit. The
detailed downstream channel stability analysis will be
performed during the design phase of the Project.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Department Hydrology
Staff, and the Resident
Engineer
Design, Construction
WQ-4. Treatment BMPs. The Project will incorporate
treatment BMPs that have been approved for statewide
use per the guidelines in the PPDG. The treatment
BMPs listed below are to be considered for projects
discharging directly or indirectly to receiving waters.
These BMPs have been approved for statewide use and
are to be considered for significant reconstruction
projects in urban Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) areas. The PPDG provides design
guidelines for the approved treatment BMPs. The
treatment BMPs will clean runoff water and minimize
pollutants from construction.
• Biofiltration Systems: Strips/Swales
• Infiltration Devices: Basins/Trenches
• Detention Devices
• Traction Sand Traps
• Dry Weather Flow Diversion
• Gross Solids Removal Devices (GSRDs)
• Media Filters: Austin/Delaware Sand Filters
• Multi-Chamber Treatment Trains (MCTT)
• Wet Basins
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
WQ-5. Dewatering Permit. The Project may require
localized dewatering in areas where groundwater is
shallow. If dewatering is necessary, the Project will
comply with the general de minimus permit that applies
to general waste discharge requirements for discharges
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
190
20 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
to surface waters in the Santa Ana region (NPDES
CAG 998001).
Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography
GEO-1. Surface Fault Rupture. To further evaluate the
fault-rupture hazard along the Project alignment, a
subsurface evaluation will be performed. The subsurface
evaluation will include the excavation and detailed logging
of exploratory trenches, test pits, and/or borings,
geophysical studies such as high-resolution seismic
reflection, seismic refraction, ground penetrating radar,
gravity and/or magnetic profiling, or other applicable
methods. The evaluation will be performed prior to final
design and construction so that if a fault-rupture hazard
exists, foundations for grade separations or other
structures can be designed for the anticipated
displacement or located away from the fault trace.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Geotechnical
Staff and the Project
Engineer
Design, Preconstruction
GEO-2. Ground Shaking. Minimization of the potential
impacts of seismic ground shaking will be achieved
through Project design, construction, and maintenance.
During the final design phase, site specific geotechnical
evaluations will be performed to obtain detailed subsurface
soil and geologic data, including a probabilistic assessment
of the ground motion expected at the site. Structural
elements will then be designed to resist or accommodate
site-specific ground motion. All designs will conform to the
current Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications and
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) seismic design standards.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Geotechnical
Staff and the Project
Engineer
Design, Preconstruction
GEO-3. Liquefaction. Site-specific geotechnical
evaluations will be performed during the design phase of
the Project to assess the liquefaction and dynamic
settlement potential of the onsite soils. Foundations for
structures will be designed for liquefaction by supporting
the piles in dense soil or bedrock below the liquefaction
zone or by other appropriate methods to be determined
during the site-specific evaluation. Additional measures for
liquefaction may include densification by installing stone
columns, vibroflotation, or deep dynamic compaction. To
reduce vibration impacts to existing facilities during ground
improvement, other methods, such as compaction grouting
or deep-soil mixing cells, will be used.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Geotechnical
Staff and the Project
Engineer
Design
191
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 21 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
GEO-4. Compressible/Collapsible Soils. During the
design phase of the Project, a site-specific geotechnical
evaluation will be performed to determine the presence of
compressible/collapsible soils. The settlement potential of
the soils will be evaluated where structures or fills are
proposed and at existing facilities that could be impacted
by the settlement. If the settlement potential exceeds
acceptable tolerances for a structure (based on the
California Amendments to the AASHTO [load-and-
resistance factor design] LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications – Fourth Edition [Department 2011]), then
remedial measures will be incorporated into design and
construction. Possible measures include surcharging,
overexcavation and recompaction, compaction grouting,
allowing for a settlement period during or after
construction, and specialized foundation design. The
method chosen will be determined during final design and
as construction progresses.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Geotechnical
Staff and the Project
Engineer
Design
GEO-5. Expansive Soils. Site-specific investigations will
be conducted during the design phase of the Project to
determine whether expansive soils are present. If
expansive soil conditions are found and are considered
detrimental to proposed improvements, measures such as
overexcavation and replacement with non expansive soil,
chemical treatment (e.g., lime or cement), moisture control,
and/or specific structural design for expansive soil
conditions will be developed during design of the Project.
Indirect impacts of expansive soils on existing facilities will
also be considered. Measures could include limiting
construction dewatering or redirecting storm water flows to
reduce risk of significant seasonal soil moisture changes.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Geotechnical
Staff and the Project
Engineer
Design
192
22 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
GEO-6. Slope Stability. Site-specific geotechnical
evaluations will be performed during the design phase of
the Project to assess the potential for rock-slope failures.
Measures to minimize rock-slope failures will include
excavating potentially unstable material to create a flatter,
more stable slope configuration, constructing buttress
and/or stabilization fills, installing rock bolts on the face of
the slope, installing protective wire mesh on the slope face,
or constructing debris impact walls at the toe of the slope
to contain rock-fall debris. The method will be determined
during final design and during construction.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Geotechnical
Staff and the Project
Engineer
Design
193
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 23 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
GEO-7. Groundwater. Due to potentially shallow
groundwater levels, wet or saturated soil could be
encountered in excavations during construction.
Excavations that extend below the water table might need
to be dewatered. If dewatering is not adequately controlled
by the contractor, it could induce consolidation of the soils
under an excavation, which can cause differential
settlement of nearby existing structures and improvements.
The amount of consolidation due to dewatering can
depend on many factors, including the areal extent and
depth of dewatering, soil type, soil density, and the
methods used by the dewatering contractor.
Water generated during dewatering will require
assessments to determine proper disposal. This disposal
will be coordinated with the Regional Water Quality Board
and will comply with other jurisdictional requirements. This
may include pretreatment in Baker tanks and disposal into
the local sanitary sewer system or minimal pretreatment
and disposal into temporary holding ponds or onto the
surrounding ground. Final disposition of dewatering water
will be determined during final design and during
construction.
To reduce the potential for damage resulting from
dewatering or excavation operations, the ground surface
and structures around the excavation will be monitored for
movement. If monitoring instruments detect ground
movement that exceeds a predetermined value (based on
the California Amendments to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications – Fourth Edition [Department 2011]),
construction will stop and the contractor’s methods will be
reviewed. Appropriate changes will be made, if necessary.
Typical monitoring methods include installing devices
around the outside of the excavation to monitor settlement
or placing devices on nearby structures to monitor
performance of the structures.
Excavations for the underground structures will need to be
performed with care to reduce the potential for lateral
deflection of excavation sidewalls and/or shoring, which
could also cause differential movement of structures
located near the excavation. Inclinometers can be installed
along the sides of an excavation to monitor lateral
deflection of the sidewalls during excavation.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Geotechnical
Staff, the Project
Engineer, and the
Resident Engineer
Construction
194
24 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
GEO-8. Excavation Characteristics. Parts of the Project
would be underlain by crystalline bedrock. Deeper,
unweathered portions of the bedrock may require blasting
or other difficult excavation techniques such as breakers.
Blasting or breakers, if required, will produce temporary
noise and dust hazards, which will be appropriately
monitored during construction. Measures for
construction-noise abatement will include appropriate
personal protective equipment and procedures (e.g.,
adequate ear protection, establishing a safe distance from
a blasting location). Possible dust control measures
include appropriate personal protective equipment and
procedures (e.g., respiratory equipment, covers for truck
trailers that haul excavated materials, wetting dry or dusty
excavations and material). Measures for noise and ejected
media will include barriers such as vertical shields and
mats overlying the working surface. The final measures
will be determined during construction.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Geotechnical
Staff, the Project
Engineer, and the
Resident Engineer
Construction
Paleontology
PALEO-1. Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP). Prior
to construction, the services of a qualified professional
paleontologist will be retained by RCTC to prepare a
PMP consistent with Department guidelines. The PMP
will include the following:
• PALEO-1a. Retention of Qualified Paleontologist.
The PMP will stipulate that prior to construction, the
services of a qualified professional paleontologist will
be retained by RCTC to implement the PMP during
earth-moving activities.
• PALEO-1b. Museum Storage Agreement. The PMP
will include a formal agreement that will be developed
with a recognized museum repository, such as the
San Bernardino County Museum Division of
Geological Sciences.
• PALEO-1c. Additional Paleontological Survey. The
PMP will provide measures for additional
paleontological surveys if the location of any
alternative is changed or if any unrecorded fossil sites
are discovered or fossilized remains are recovered.
Additional surveys will include recording any
associated fossil specimen and site and identifying
fine grained strata suitable for containing fossilized
remains.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Paleontologist
and the Resident
Engineer
Design, Preconstruction,
Construction
195
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 25 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
• PALEO-1d. Preconstruction Coordination with
Resident Engineer. The PMP will address
coordination among the qualified professional
paleontologist or field supervisor, the Resident
Engineer, and construction contractor personnel
regarding the protection of paleontological resources,
including a preconstruction briefing on procedures to
be implemented if a fossil site or remains are
encountered by earth-moving activities, particularly
when a paleontological construction monitor is not
onsite.
• PALEO-1e. Monitoring Plan. The PMP will include a
plan for monitoring and periodic dry-screen testing by
a qualified paleontological construction monitor. A
paleontological monitoring plan may include full-time
or part-time monitoring, visually inspecting freshly
exposed strata and debris piles, and dry-screen
testing for smaller fossils, as well as methods for the
discovery of fossilized remains, the recovery of
fossilized remains, and instructions about how to
coordinate with the Resident Engineer to divert
construction activities away from the fossil site.
• PALEO-1f. Specimen Handling. The PMP will
provide instructions for the preparation, identification,
curation, and cataloging of fossil and/or sediment
specimens.
• PALEO-1g. Transfer of Fossil Collection to Museum.
The PMP will provide instructions for the transfer of
the entire fossil collection, along with all supporting
documentation, to a museum repository, where the
fossils will be permanently stored and maintained.
• PALEO-1h. Reporting. The PMP will provide
instructions for the paleontological construction
monitor to report daily activities and for preparing a
Paleontological Mitigation Report (PMR) that is
consistent with Department guidelines. The PMR is to
be prepared by a qualified professional paleontologist
in accordance with Department and RCTC
requirements.
Hazardous Waste/Materials
HAZMAT-1. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
Conduct a limited Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (Phase II ESA) to address the possible
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Design
196
26 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
presence of pesticides. A Phase II investigation for
agricultural properties that have a potential for pesticides
will be performed during right-of-way acquisition to
confirm that the soil can be classified as nonhazardous
based on the residual levels of pesticides.
In general, that Phase II ESA would include the following:
• Work Plan
• Health and Safety Plan
• Access agreements
• Field sampling in accordance with the work plan and
health and safety plan
• Analytical testing
• Documentation
• Recommendation may include additional sampling,
preparing a soil handling plan, or a remedial action
plan
• Disposal of wastes
Project Hazardous
Waste Lead
HAZMAT-2. Aerially Deposited Lead Surveys. Conduct
aerially deposited lead (ADL) surveys where proposed
roadway segments intersect the current rights-of-way of
SR 79/Winchester Road, SR 74/Florida Avenue, and
Domenigoni Parkway. An ADL investigation for these
sites will be conducted during final design to confirm that
the soil can be classified as a nonhazardous material
according to Title 22 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) and that it is suitable for reuse or
disposal without restriction.
In general, ADL Surveys will include the following:
• Workplan
• Health and Safety Plan
• Access agreements
• Field sampling in accordance with the workplan and
health and safety plan
• Analytical testing
• Traffic control
• Documentation
• Recommendations for proper disposal of the soil to be
excavated during construction
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Hazardous
Waste Lead
Design
197
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 27 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
HAZMAT-3. Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-
Based Paint Surveys. Conduct asbestos containing
materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP) surveys
to address the possibility of the presence of ACM and/or
LBP in buildings that are scheduled for demolition and
or/renovation. The ACM and/or LBP surveys will be
completed during final design (before acquisition).
In general, the ACM and/or LBP surveys will include the
following:
• Workplan
• Health and Safety Plan
• Access agreements
• Field sampling in accordance with the workplan and
health and safety plan
• Analytical testing
• Documentation
• Recommendations for disposal and handling
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Hazardous
Waste Lead
Design
HAZMAT-4. Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan.
The Riverside County Transportation Commission will
prepare a hazardous materials contingency plan
addressing the potential for discovery of previously
unidentified underground storage tanks (USTs),
hazardous materials, petroleum hydrocarbons,
hazardous or solid wastes, or contaminated soil
encountered during construction. This contingency plan
will address UST decommissioning, field screening and
testing of potential contaminated materials and soil,
mitigation and contaminant management requirements,
and health and safety requirements.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Hazardous
Waste Lead
Construction
198
28 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
HAZMAT-5. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit. Prior to any dewatering activities, RCTC
will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. In areas where contaminated
groundwater is suspected, specific conditions will apply
with regard to acquisition of the NPDES permit, including
testing and monitoring, as well as discharge limitations
under the NPDES permit. The discharge limitations in
the NPDES permit may include, as applicable,
requirements pertaining to discharge of federal and/or
state regulated pollutants that may be present in the
water.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
RCTC Hydrology Staff
Preconstruction
Air Quality
AQ-1. First-Stage Smog Alerts. Suspension of all
construction equipment operations during first stage
smog alerts is required.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
AQ-2. Electricity. To the extent feasible, use electricity
from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or
gasoline-powered generators.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
AQ-3. Construction Parking. Configure construction
parking to minimize traffic interference on local streets.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
AQ-4. Construction Truck Routes. To the extent
feasible, reroute construction trucks from congested
streets or sensitive receptor areas.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
AQ-5. Onsite Construction Traffic Control. Provide
temporary traffic controls, such as a flag man, for onsite
construction vehicles during all phases of construction to
maintain smooth traffic flow.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
AQ-6. Construction Vehicle Turn Lanes. Provide
dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction
vehicles if no turn lane currently exists, where feasible.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
AQ-7. Blasting Activities. During blasting operations, the
work area shall be watered before and after the blasting
activities, and blasting mats shall be used to prevent
debris from escaping the blasting area.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction Yes
AQ-8. Signal Boards. All message/signal boards shall
be solar powered.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction Yes
199
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 29 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
AQ-9. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs).
Establish ESAs according to the following:
• An ESA fence will be defined and delineated along all
portions of the construction limits, 152 meters
(500 feet) from adjacent developed residential areas
and/or from all adjacent businesses that include
health care facilities or substantial outdoor activity,
such as playgrounds, prior to commencement of
construction activities within those parts of the Project
area.
• An ESA fence will be defined and delineated along all
portions of the construction limits, 304.5 meters
(1,000 feet) from adjacent schools and licensed day
care centers, prior to commencement of construction
activities within those parts of the Project area.
• No staging or storage of materials will be allowed
within these ESAs; however, equipment activity
necessary for construction of the portion of the Project
located within the ESA areas can occur.
• All construction equipment emissions within these
152-meter (500 foot) and 304.5-meter (1,000-foot)
ESAs will be minimized to the maximum extent
feasible by shutting down equipment not in use and
not idling for more than 5 minutes, or the applicable
SCAQMD best practices time limit in effect during the
time of construction (reducing all criteria pollutant
emissions during construction).
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction Yes
AQ-10: Construction Equipment. Meet and when
practical go beyond California Resources Board
requirements for in-use diesel engines and equipment,
particularly for nonroad construction fleets. Ensure that
construction equipment meet or exceed equivalent
emissions performance to that of U.S.EPA Tier 4
standards for non-road engines.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
AQ-11: Construction Areas. Apply nontoxic soil
stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to
all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for ten days or more).
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
AQ-12: Street Sweeping. Sweep streets at the end of
the day if visible soil is carried onto adjacent public
paved roads. Use street sweepers that comply with
SCAQMD Rules 1186 and 1186.1.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
200
30 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
AQ-13: Traffic Speed Control. Traffic speeds on all
unpaved roads to be reduced to 15 miles per hour or less
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
AQ-14: Grading. Cease grading during periods when
winds exceed (as instantaneous gusts) 25 miles per
hour.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
Noise
NO-1. Installation of Recommended Noise Barriers
Shown to be Feasible and Reasonable. Recommended
noise barriers that are shown to be feasible and
reasonable under each Build alternative or design option
should be considered further for inclusion as part of the
Project. While primarily an abatement measure for traffic
noise, barriers will also provide abatement of
construction noise if they are in place prior to
construction. The noise barriers per alternative are:
• Build Alternative 1a: Five noise barriers, including
1A-E1, 1A-G1, 1A-J2, 1A-L2, and 1A-L3
• Build Alternative 1b (including Design Option 1b1):
Six noise barriers, including 1B-G2, 1B K3, 1B-M3,
1B-M4, 1B-N1, and 1B-N2
• Build Alternative 2a: Five noise barriers, including
2A-F1, 2A-H1, 2A-K3, 2A-L2, and 2A L3
• Build Alternative 2b (including Design Option 2b1):
Six noise barriers, including 2B H1, 2B J2, 2B-M3,
2B-M4, 2B-N1, and 2B-N2
• Build Alternative 1b with Refinements: Six noise
barriers, including 1B-G2, 1B K3, 1B-M3, 1B-M4, 1B-
N1, and 1B-N2
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer
Design
NO-2. Observation of Time Restrictions and Use of
Alternative Alarms. As required by the Standard
Specifications Provisions, do not exceed 86 dBA at 50
feet from the job site activities from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. Use an alternative warning method instead of a
sound signal unless required by safety laws.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
NO-3. Use Mufflers on Equipment with Internal
Combustion Engines. As required by the Standard
Specifications Provisions, equip internal combustion
engines with manufacturer-recommended mufflers. Do
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
201
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 31 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
not operate an internal combustion engine on the job site
without the appropriate muffler.
NO-4. Placement of Stationary Equipment. Stationary
construction equipment will be placed such that noise is
directed away from sensitive receivers nearest the
activity.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
NO-5. Construction Equipment Staging. Construction
equipment and supplies will be located in staging areas
that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive
receivers nearest the activity.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
Natural Communities and Wildlife Movement (direct and indirect)
BIO-1. Landscaping Plans. Landscaping plans will
include native seed for erosion control in areas near the
MSHCP Conservation Area.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Landscape
Architect and Project
Biologist
Design
BIO-2. Avoid the Use of Invasive and Non-Native Plants.
The landscaping plans will avoid the use of invasive and
non-native plants listed in MSHCP Table 6-2, Plants that
Should be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP
Conservation Area, where applicable.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Landscape
Architect and Project
Biologist
Design
BIO-3. Barrier Fencing along ROW. The Project will
incorporate fencing along the ROW to serve as a barrier
to preclude public access to the MSHCP Conservation
Area.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Project Biologist, and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
BIO-4. Slope Construction within ROW . All slopes will
be constructed within the proposed ROW and will not
extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Design, Construction
BIO-5. Equipment Storage, Fueling, and Staging Areas.
Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be
situated in nonsensitive upland habitats that offer
minimal risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or
other sensitive habitats.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
Resident Engineer and
the Project Biologist
Construction
202
32 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
BIO-6. Training about Sensitive Biological Resources. A
contractor supplied biologist who is familiar with the
sensitive plant and animal species in the Project area will
provide training about these sensitive biological
resources to construction personnel.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Preconstruction
BIO-7. Fire Season Work. During the fire season (as
identified by the Riverside County Fire Department),
especially when work is adjacent to coastal sage scrub
or chaparral vegetation, appropriate firefighting
equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers)
will be available onsite during all phases of Project
construction to minimize the chance of wildfires. Shields,
protective mats, or other fire prevention methods will be
used during grinding, welding, and other activities that
produce sparks. Personnel trained in fire hazards,
preventive action, and responses to fires will advise
contractors about the fire risk from all construction-
related activities.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
Resident Engineer
Construction
BIO-8. Dust Minimization. The Project will minimize dust
by regularly watering active construction areas.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
Resident Engineer
Construction
BIO-9. Designated Areas for Equipment Maintenance
and Staging. All equipment maintenance, staging, and
dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other toxic
substances will occur only in designated areas within the
grading limits of the Project. These designated areas will
be clearly marked and located in such a manner as to
contain runoff.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
Resident Engineer
Construction
BIO-10. Litter Control. A litter-control program will be
implemented during construction.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with
Resident Engineer
Construction
BIO-11. Bridge over Salt Creek Channel. All Build
alternatives and design options will include the
construction of a bridge over MSHCP Existing
Constrained Linkage B, which is also known as the Salt
Creek Channel. Existing Constrained Linkage B is
shown in MSHCP Section 3.2.3, Figure 3-2, Schematic
Cores and Linkages Map. The planning species for the
linkage are identified in a table later in that section:
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp
• Riverside fairy shrimp
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Design, Construction
203
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 33 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
• Los Angeles pocket mouse
• San Jacinto Valley crownscale
• Parish’s brittlescale
• Davidson’s saltscale
• Thread-leaved brodiaea
• Smooth tarplant
• Vernal barley
• Coulter’s goldfields
• Little mousetail
• Spreading navarretia
• California Orcutt grass
• Wright’s trichocoronis
The proposed bridge over Existing Constrained Linkage
B (Salt Creek) will avoid impacts to wildlife connectivity
for these planning species.
BIO-12. Avoidance of San Jacinto River. The Build
alternatives and design options will avoid Proposed
Core 3, which will be north of the Project (MSHCP
Section 3.2.3, Figure 3-2, Schematic Cores and Linkages
Map). All Build alternatives and design options will avoid
the San Jacinto River and lands north of that area.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Construction
BIO-13. Avoidance of Existing Constrained Linkage C.
All Build alternatives and design options will avoid
Existing Constrained Linkage C. No construction
activities will occur in this linkage.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Construction
BIO-14. Night Lighting. Lighting used during nighttime
construction activities will be directed away from the
MSHCP Conservation Area. If it cannot be directed
away, shielding will be used to ensure that ambient light
in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Construction
BIO-15. Crossing Structures and Spacing Intervals for a
Variety of Species. A mixture of large crossing structures
spaced at regular intervals and smaller culverts spaced
at more frequent intervals will be installed throughout the
Project to accommodate a variety of species.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Design, Construction
BIO-16. Openings in K-Rails for Small Animals.
Openings in concrete “K-rail” barriers will be provided at
regular intervals to allow small wildlife to cross or escape
roadways.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
204
34 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
BIO-17. Wildlife Crossings Intended for Large
Mammalian Wildlife. The wildlife crossings intended for
large mammalian wildlife will be designed to incorporate
adequate openness ratios (opening width times height,
divided by length of crossing) for the large mammalian
wildlife intended to use each crossing.
RCTC Project manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Project Biologist, and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
BIO-18. Use of Tree and Shrub Buffers around Crossing
Entrances, No Artificial Lighting. Wildlife crossings
incorporated into the Project will not add artificial lighting
to the center of the crossing structure. These devices
have not been shown to be effective and could deter
wildlife at night. Natural light from skylights or grating
may be used in particularly long structures. Tree and
shrub buffers around crossing entrances, skylights, and
grating will be used for visual relief, protection, and
sound attenuation.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Project Biologist, and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
BIO-19. Wildlife Crossings Vegetated as Naturally as
Possible. Wildlife crossings will be vegetated as
naturally as possible to blend with the area around the
crossing. In accordance with BIO-1 and BIO 2, the use
of invasive and non-native plants will be avoided. Use of
plants that are poisonous to wildlife, such as oleander,
will be also be avoided.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Biologist, the
Landscape Architect,
and Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
BIO-20. Use of Biodegradable Material in Erosion and
Sediment Control Devices. Erosion and sediment control
devices used for the proposed project, including fiber
rolls and bonded fiber matrix, will be made from
biodegradable materials such as jute, with no plastic
mesh, to avoid creating a wildlife entanglement hazard.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Project Biologist, and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
BIO-21. Use of Natural Objects in the Crossing Facility.
Natural objects, such as stumps, rocks, and other natural
debris, will be placed in wildlife crossings to create cover
for wildlife and to encourage use of the crossings.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Biologist, the
Landscape Architect,
and Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
205
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 35 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
BIO-22. Installation of Vegetative Cover near the
Entrances to Culverts. Vegetative cover will be placed
near the entrances to culverts to increase their
effectiveness for carnivores and smaller wildlife.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Biologist, the
Landscape Architect,
and Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
BIO-23. Installation of Dirt, Rock, or Concrete Benches
on at Least One Side of Large Mammal Crossings. Dirt,
rock, or concrete benches will be installed on at least one
side of large mammal crossings to allow wildlife to cross
during storms.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Biologist, the
Landscape Architect,
Project Engineer, and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
BIO-24. Wildlife Fencing. To reduce end-runs around
fences, the wildlife fencing will continue at least 0.5 mi
beyond the wildlife crossing or to an appropriate location
that is unsuitable for wildlife (e.g., structure, steep
hillside, urban area).
Directional fencing will be installed along Salt Creek
Channel/San Jacinto Branch Line to funnel wildlife away
from the right-of-way and minimize impacts associated
with hazards from traffic.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Design, Construction
BIO-25. Installation of Jump-Outs and Escape Ramps.
Wildlife fencing will include wildlife jump-outs and escape
ramps to allow trapped wildlife to escape back into the
MSHCP Conservation Area and to exit the road system
safely. Wildlife fencing will include wildlife jump-outs and
escape ramps on the roadway side of the fence, at
approximately 1-km (0.62-mi) intervals; specific spacing
intervals will be determined during final design and in
coordination with RCA.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Design, Construction
BIO-26. Enhancements to Wildlife Corridors. To
mitigate Project impacts to wildlife corridors, as part of
the refinement of the Selected Alternative,
enhancements will be included during final design to
facilitate wildlife movement under bridges and through
proposed culverts. Enhancements will be consistent with
the objectives of the MSHCP and will include directional
fencing and structural features to provide all-weather
crossings in culverts. The design of wildlife movement
features and enhancements will be determined after the
Preferred Alternative is identified.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Project Biologist
Design
206
36 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
Wetlands and Other Waters
WQ-1. Construction Best Management Practices in
Compliance with Project Planning and Design Guide
(PPDG), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Standard
Special Provisions (SSP).
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
WQ-4. Treatment BMPs. RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
WQ-5. Dewatering Permit. RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer and
Resident Engineer
Design, Construction
BIO-27. Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing. An
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fence will be
installed as shown on the contractor’s plans, and per
Caltrans Standard Specifications.
For Build Alternatives 2a and 2b and Design Option 2b1
along the edge of the ROW for Roadway Segments D
and H (if identified for construction as part of the
Preferred Alternative) to avoid direct impacts to sensitive
resources in the Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex
located in Additional Indirect Impact Study Area 1.
These sensitive resources include a vernal pool, the
federally listed vernal pool branchiopod, and federally
and/or state-listed or sensitive plant populations
consisting of Coulter’s goldfields (Narrow Endemic),
smooth tarplant (Narrow Endemic), San Jacinto Valley
crownscale (Critical Area), little mousetail (Critical Area),
spreading navarretia (Critical Area), and California Orcutt
grass (Critical Area). A contractor-supplied biological
monitor who has knowledge about wetland ecology and
rare plants will demark the location of the ESA fence in
the field and on construction drawings and plans and will
supervise the ESA fence installation. The biological
monitor will also inspect the ESA fencing regularly during
construction and coordinate with the Resident Engineer if
fence repairs should be required.
BIO-27a. Additionally, the contractor will install
temporary treatment BMPs, such as fiber rolls or straw
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Preconstruction,
Construction
207
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 37 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
wattles, around the vernal pool for protection from
possible runoff created by construction activities.
BIO-28. Onsite and Offsite Drainage Facilities in the
Project ROW . Onsite and offsite drainage facilities will
be constructed within the Project ROW to ensure that the
quantity and quality of runoff discharged into the MSHCP
Conservation Area will not affect existing conditions.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Constr.
BIO-29. Maintenance of Constructed Storm Water
Systems. Regular maintenance of constructed storm
water systems will take place to ensure effective
operation of these systems.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
BIO-30. No Erodible Materials Deposited in
Watercourses. No erodible materials will be deposited
into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris
material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or
on adjacent banks.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Environmental Task
Lead
Preconstruction
BIO-31. Ongoing Monitoring and Reporting. Ongoing
monitoring and reporting will occur for the duration of the
construction activity to ensure implementation of BMPs.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
Construction
BIO-32. Modification of the Project Design to Construct
a Gravity Based Surface Water Diversion System. if
Build Alternative 2a or Build Alternative 2b is identified as
the Preferred Alternative for the Project, requires the
design of the Alternative to include measures to avoid
and reduce impacts to the vernal pool complex adjacent
to Stowe Road that would reduce impacts to the
sensitive plant populations located in Additional Indirect
Impact Study Area 1, including Coulter’s goldfields
(Narrow Endemic), smooth tarplant (Narrow Endemic),
and little mousetail (Criteria Area).
• BIO-32a. Engineering Design. During the plans,
specifications, and estimates (PS&E) phase of the
Project, the proposed design modification will be
implemented and refined to address the items listed
below.
An interceptor trench will be constructed below the
modified cut slope adjacent to Roadway Segment H.
The size and position of this trench will be optimized
to capture runoff that could impact the Stowe Road
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Project Hydrologist,
Landscape Architect,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Design, Preconstruction,
Construction,
Postconstruction
208
38 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
Vernal Pool Complex watershed. The exact capture
area will be refined based on the surface structure of
the cut slope (vegetated or exposed granite bedrock).
The drainage will be designed to convey water via
gravity from the interceptor trench to a small storage
basin, then through piping into an existing ephemeral
drainage in the upper watershed of the Stowe Road
Vernal Pool Complex. Depending on the final contour
of the cut slope, either one or two pipe outlets will be
required. The storage basin upstream of each pipe
outlet may include flow regulators/dissipaters,
depending on the rate of flow from the cut slope into
the interceptor trench. The design will be optimized
so that flow rates into the Stowe Road Vernal Pool
Complex will not result in sedimentation levels that
exceed the levels present before construction.
A detailed Drainage Recapture Design Plan (DRDP)
will be prepared prior to the completion of PS&E to
describe the water conveyance features to be
constructed. This DRDP will also summarize the
expected performance of the drainage system during
periods of low, average, and peak precipitation. The
anticipated cut slope treatment will be identified. A
landscaping plan will be included if terraced or
stabilized slopes can hold soil and support vegetation
after construction. If applicable, the landscaping plan
will include a list of the plant species to be seeded or
planted, target seeding and/or planting densities,
revegetation techniques to be employed, criteria used
to gauge the success of revegetation, maintenance
and monitoring methods to be implemented, a
schedule of monitoring and reporting activities, and
remedial measures. This DRDP will be submitted to
the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the
Wildlife Agencies, the RWQCB, and USACE for
review to verify that the objectives of this measure
have been achieved.
• BIO-32b. Baseline Hydrology Monitoring Plan. Prior
to the completion of PS&E, a detailed Baseline
Hydrology Monitoring Plan (BHMP) will be prepared,
reviewed, and implemented to facilitate drainage
design modifications and provide a basis for later
comparison to postconstruction conditions in the
Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex.
209
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 39 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
This BHMP will describe the data to be collected,
instruments to be installed, duration of the sampling
effort, and methods of data interpretation. Baseline
data will be collected in average, below average, and
higher than average water years prior to the
completion of PS&E. Data are intended to determine
the amount and frequency of surface water flows into
the existing drainage in the upper watershed and the
amount of sediment transported to the Stowe Road
Vernal Pool Complex.
The extent and depth of pool ponding throughout the
filling and drying period will be collected. A weather
station will be installed to measure rainfall and provide
data specific to the watershed. Surface water flow
(e.g., Parshall flumes, pressure transducers) and
sediment-sampling devices (Isco sediment samplers
or other devices), combined with manual sampling,
will be used to determine surface water flows and
sediment loads. The sample locations and equipment
to be used will be determined by a professional
hydrologist who is experienced with surface water
hydrology, sediment sampling, and data interpretation
in the natural landscape. Photo documentation will
also be used to note site changes throughout the
monitoring period. The BHMP will be submitted to the
RCA, the Wildlife Agencies, the RWQCB, and USACE
for review to verify that the objectives of this measure
have been achieved.
• BIO-32c. Postconstruction Surface Water Monitoring.
A Postconstruction Monitoring Plan (PCMP) will be
prepared, reviewed, and implemented to ensure that
the gravity-based surface-water diversion system
functions in average, below average, and higher than
average water years and provides compensatory
hydrology volume, based on the baseline conditions,
with an acceptable flow rate into the upper watershed
of the Stowe Road Vernal Pool Complex. The PCMP
will be developed concurrently with PS&E and will be
implemented after construction.
The PCMP will detail the procedures to be used to
calculate the water flows from the pipe outlet to the
existing drainage and total sediment loads within the
drainage. Sampling will occur at the instruments
installed as part of the BHMP, as well as at new
210
40 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
postconstruction locations. The total water flows that
occur after construction of the Project, especially
storm water discharges, will be evaluated to
determine if any modifications are needed to regulate
total flows and velocities to the existing drainage, as
determined in the BHMP, into the lower watershed.
An adaptive management process will be included for
evaluating and implementing procedures and/or
remedial measures for sediment control, such as
deepening the receptor basins or other activities, to
prevent scour and release of sediments in excess of
the existing condition into the lower watershed.
The intent of the monitoring period is to evaluate
average, below average, and higher than average
water years. The ability to accomplish this will depend
on the local precipitation. Monitoring will be required
for each of these water years. Initially, monitoring will
be conducted for 5 years, but more years could be
required to obtain the necessary data.
Annual monitoring reports will be prepared and
submitted to the RCA, the Wildlife Agencies, the
RWQCB, and USACE for review to verify that the
objectives of this measure have been achieved.
Potential remedial actions or modifications to the
PCMP will be made based on results of annual
monitoring. A final review will take place at the end of
the 5-year monitoring period to determine if additional
monitoring will be required.
BIO-33. Mitigation of Impacts to Water Features.
Appropriate mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands and other waters will be determined through the
permitting process. The mitigation will lessen the impact
to a level below significance and will ensure no net loss
of wetlands. Mitigation may include preservation,
enhancement, restoration and/or creation of wetlands as
well as the following two measures.
• BIO-33a. Drainage Ditches. For impacts to roadside
ditches, onsite mitigation will consist of replacement
through the reconstruction of these features along the
new roadway alignment.
• BIO-33b. Seasonal Wetlands. For unavoidable
permanent impacts to seasonal wetlands, including
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer
211
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 41 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
vernal pools and riparian wetlands, offsite mitigation
will consist of wetland/riparian creation, enhancement,
or restoration within the San Jacinto watershed and/or
the purchase of wetland creation credits at a USACE-
approved wetland mitigation bank.
• BIO-33c, Salt Creek and Hemet Channel. For
temporary impacts to Salt Creek and Hemet
Channel, onsite mitigation will consist of re-
contouring temporarily impacted areas to pre-
project conditions once construction is complete.
Restoration would include grading of disturbed
areas to pre-project contours and reseeding with
native plant species. Detailed restoration
procedures, as well as, post construction
monitoring of these areas will be included in the
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that will be
included with the USACE Section 404 Clean Water
Act Permit Application.
Plant Species
BIO-1. Landscaping plans RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Landscape
Architect and Project
Biologist
Design
BIO-2. Avoid the Use of Invasive and Non-Native Plants RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Landscape
Architect and Project
Biologist
Design
BIO-27. Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Preconstruction,
Construction
BIO-32a-c. Modification of the Project Design to
Construct a Gravity Based Surface Water Diversion
System (only if Build Alternative 2a or Build Alternative
2b is identified as the Preferred Alternative for the
Project).
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Project Hydrologist,
Landscape Architect,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Design, Preconstruction,
Construction,
Postconstruction
212
42 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
BIO-34. Avoidance of Sensitive Plant Populations. An
ESA fence will be installed as shown on the contractor’s
plans, and per Caltrans Standard Specifications, at the
outer edge of the ROW of either Roadway Segment J of
the Preferred Alternative during construction, within
Criteria Cell 3291, to avoid long-term conservation value
(LTCV) little mousetail populations (approximately
10,000 plants) located in the indirect impact area. A
contractor supplied biological monitor who has
knowledge about and experience with local sensitive
plant species will determine the location of the ESA
fence in the field and identify it on construction drawings
and plans and will supervise installation of the fence.
The biological monitor will also inspect the ESA fencing
regularly during construction and coordinate with the
Resident Engineer if fence repairs should be required.
An ESA fence will be installed along the edge of the
Roadway Segment L ROW, for either Build Alternative
1a or 2a, to avoid impacts to Coulter’s goldfields
populations 49 and 52 and smooth tarplant populations
483 and 511 (Figure 3.3-27 and Figure 3.3-31). The
locations of these populations will be shown on
construction plans and drawings. A contractor-supplied
biological monitor who has knowledge about and
experience with local sensitive plant species will demark
the location of the ESA fence in the field and on
construction drawings and plans and will supervise
installation of the fence. The biological monitor will also
inspect the ESA fencing regularly during construction
and coordinate with the Resident Engineer if fence
repairs should be required.
An ESA will be established for all Build alternatives,
except Build Alternative 1br, at the edge of the Roadway
Segment I ROW adjacent to the federally listed as
endangered San Jacinto Valley crownscale populations.
The location of these populations will be shown on
construction plans and drawings. A contractor-supplied
biological monitor who has knowledge about and
experience with local sensitive plant species will demark
the location of the ESA fence in the field and on
construction drawings and plans and will supervise
installation of the fence. The biological monitor will also
inspect the ESA fencing regularly during construction
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Design, Construction
213
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 43 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
and coordinate with the Resident Engineer if fence
repairs should be required.
BIO-35. Avoid the Spread of Invasive Plant Species.
The Project will incorporate specifications in the
landscape plans to avoid the spread of invasive plant
species.
• BIO-35a. Cleaning of Equipment. All construction
equipment shall be cleaned, with a broom or other
appropriate method, of potential invasive plant seeds
before entering sensitive habitat areas.
• BIO-35b. Monitoring. Periodic invasive plant species
monitoring of the ROW and adjacent sensitive areas
will be conducted during construction by contractor-
supplied plant biologists who have knowledge about
and experience with the local flora and invasive species
of the region. Key monitoring objectives are to identify
and eradicate any invasive weed infestations that
establish or spread within the ROW during construction
to prevent them from extending into adjacent sensitive
areas. Monitoring will be conducted quarterly, at a
minimum, and will focus on the portions of the ROW
that are adjacent to Additional Indirect Impact Study
Areas 1 and 2, in particular, the Stowe Road Vernal
Pool Complex and the Stoney Mountain Preserve.
Qualified biologists will demark the location of noxious
weeds in the field, on construction and engineering
drawings, and with GPS units.
• BIO-35c. Eradication. A variety of methods, including
mechanical control or herbicides, will be used to
eradicate invasive plant species identified during
monitoring.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Landscape Architect,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Design, Construction
BIO-36. Mitigation for Robinson’s Peppergrass
Populations. Applicable mitigation for impacts to
populations of Robinson’s peppergrass that are
considered to have high value will be determined during
pre-construction surveys by a qualified botanist familiar
with plant species in the region. Potential mitigation could
include one of the measures listed below or a
combination of the two measures. The conservation
value of the Robinson’s peppergrass populations would
be based on the location, population size, habitat quality,
and other variables. For example, small populations in
disturbed habitats would likely be considered to have low
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Preconstruction,
Construction
214
44 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
conservation value while large populations located in the
West Hemet Hills would likely rank high.
• BIO-36a. Onsite conservation of existing Robinson’s
peppergrass populations.
• BIO-36b. Translocation of Robinson’s peppergrass
individuals or seed collection, salvage, and transfer to
areas of suitable habitat, as identified by a contractor-
supplied plant biologist who has knowledge about and
experience with the local flora species of the region,
within the Project ROW.
BIO-37. Coulter’s Goldfields and Smooth Tarplant
Populations. Mitigation for permanent direct or indirect
impacts to Coulter’s goldfields and smooth tarplant
populations will be implemented if Build Alternative 1a,
1br, or 2a are selected. Both 1a and 2a include Roadway
Segment L. Roadway Segment L would pass through
MSHCP Criteria Area Cells 2774, 2775, and 2878 and
San Jacinto Area Plan Subunit 4: Vernal Pool Areas –
East. Build Alternative 1br includes Roadway Segments,
G, I and J, which pass through Criteria Cells, 3584, 3683,
and 3291
• BIO-37a. A Determination of Biological Equivalent or
Superior Preservation (DBESP) has been prepared to
evaluate and address direct impacts to Criteria Area
plant species. Applicable mitigation for the Preferred
Alternative has been determined through coordination
with the resource agencies. The DBESP includes the
Conceptual Mitigation Plan as presented in Section
3.3.2.4, which would preserve 1.2 acres of smooth
tarplant habitat. Other potential mitigation measures
listed below or a combination of the two measures
could also be implemented.
• BIO-37b. Onsite conservation of existing smooth
tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields populations.
• BIO-37c. Translocation of smooth tarplant and
Coulter’s goldfields individuals to areas of suitable
habitat outside the Project ROW.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Preconstruction,
Construction
BIO-38. Culvert/Drainage System for Coulter’s
Goldfields and Smooth Tarplant Populations. If Build
Alternative 1a or 2a is identified as the Preferred
Alternative, a culvert/drainage system would be designed
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Landscape Architect,
Project Engineer,
Design, Construction
215
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 45 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
to maintain the existing amount of surface water flow in
the indirect impact area of Roadway Segment L. This
would maintain hydrology for two populations of Narrow
Endemic plant species, Coulter’s goldfields and smooth
tarplant, by capturing flows from the southern edge of the
ROW of Roadway Segment L and conveying flow north
to the alkali grassland/wetland habitat. The design of
this culvert/drainage system would be completed during
final design to provide flexibility in the flow discharges
after construction is completed.
Project Hydrologist,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Animal Species
BIO-14. Night Lighting. Lighting used during nighttime
construction activities shall be directed away from the
MSHCP Conservation Area. If lighting cannot be
directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area,
shielding will be incorporated into the Project to ensure
that ambient light in the MSHCP Conservation Area is
not increased.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Construction
BIO-39. Conduct Presence/Absence Surveys
Immediately Prior to Construction Each Year.
Preconstruction presence/absence surveys will be
conducted for burrowing owls in each year of
construction during the spring immediately prior to
ground disturbance and construction activities. Surveys
will be conducted within the PIA and 246-ft buffer or
additional areas based on construction and operations
noise impacts, if warranted. In addition, due to the
transitory nature of owls and their tendency to colonize
areas that may not have been colonized before,
clearance surveys (also known as Take Avoidance
Surveys in the 2012 CDFG guidance) will be conducted
at least 30 days [and no less than 14 days per CDFG
(2012)] prior to ground disturbing activities in order to
identify any owls that may have colonized suitable
habitat areas.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Preconstruction,
Construction
216
46 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
BIO-40. Relocation of Burrowing Owls. All burrowing
owls found in the PIA will be actively relocated away from
the Project to translocation sites. Prior to active
relocation the proposed locations, habitat suitability,
future management, and conservation status of the
proposed sites will be coordinated with CDFW and
USFWS. A burrowing owl relocation plan will be
prepared for submittal to the wildlife agencies for
approval 60-90 days prior to ground-disturbing activities.
Burrowing owls found 246 ft or less from the PIA will be
considered for relocation based on the adjacent
construction activities and consultation with the wildlife
agencies. Burrowing owls found more than 246 ft from
the PIA will only be considered for active relocation if
CDFW and USFWS deem appropriate based on
construction noise impacts.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Preconstruction
BIO-41. Maintenance of Hydrology to Existing Vernal
Pool/Alkali Playa Habitat. The planning species for
Noncontiguous Habitat Blocks 6 and 7 are as follows.
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp
• Riverside fairy shrimp
• Burrowing owl
• Mountain plover
• Loggerhead shrike
• Davidson’s saltscale
• Thread-leaved brodiaea
• Vernal barley
• Little mousetail
• Spreading navarretia
• California Orcutt grass
• Munz’s onion
• Los Angeles pocket mouse
• San Jacinto Valley crownscale
• Parish’s brittlescale
• Coulter’s goldfields
• Wright’s trichocoronis
The Project will maintain hydrology to existing vernal
pool/alkali playa habitat to provide for the conservation of
the Planning Species listed above. This will be
accomplished by maintaining natural hydrologic
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Hydrologist,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Design, Construction
217
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 47 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
processes or designing and implementing an engineered
solution that has the same effect.
BIO-42. Conducting Vegetation Clearance to Avoid
Active Breeding Season (February 15 through
September 15). For each year of construction,
vegetation clearing will avoid the active breeding season
(February 15 through September 15) in designated
upland habitats. If avoiding the active breeding season
is not possible and ground disturbance and construction
activities must occur during this period, a contractor
supplied biologist who is experienced in bird identification
will conduct preconstruction surveys no more than three
days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbing
activities to determine the presence of nesting birds
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If
birds that are protected by the MBTA are observed
nesting within 500 ft of proposed construction activities,
the biologist will determine whether or not construction
activities could disturb nesting birds. If necessary, the
biologist will coordinate with the wildlife agencies and
implement appropriate measures (e.g., onsite monitor,
timing restriction, chick relocation) to adequately protect
the nesting birds.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Preconstruction,
Construction
BIO-43. Nesting Raptor Surveys and Implementation of
Nest Exclusion. To ascertain the presence of nesting
raptors, preconstruction surveys will be conducted by a
contractor-supplied biologist who is experienced in raptor
ecology and identification. The surveys will be
conducted in the PIA and within 500 ft of the PIA
between February 15 and September 15 for each year of
construction, 1 year prior to ground disturbance and
construction activities.
Nest exclusion (e.g., tree removal) would only be
conducted following confirmation that a nest is inactive
and no longer being used by a raptor. If raptor nests are
found in the preconstruction survey, a contractor-
supplied biologist experienced in raptor ecology will
conduct a survey of all nest sites to ensure that nests are
not actively being used by raptors prior to removal of any
trees during the non-breeding season (Sept. 16 through
Feb. 14). All nest exclusion activities will be coordinated
with the wildlife agencies.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Preconstruction
218
48 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
BIO-44. Inspections for Roosting Bats before
Demolition. Buildings, structures, and trees identified for
demolition or removal will be inspected prior to
construction activities to determine if roosting bats are
present or are likely to be seasonally present. Before
beginning the inspections, the inspectors will be trained
by a contractor-supplied biologist who is experienced in
bat identification.
If roosting bats are present or are likely to be seasonally
present in trees with palm fronds or other hollows
suitable for bats, removal of the trees will be scheduled
at an appropriate time. A contractor-supplied biologist
who is experienced in bat ecology will supervise the
removal.
If roosting bats are present in a building slated for
demolition, bats will be removed using approved bat
exclusion techniques. Such techniques may include bat
exclusion devices, which are designed to allow one-way
exits for bats from the structures, that are installed under
the direction of a contractor-supplied biologist who is
experienced in bat ecology. Installation of new exclusion
devices, and the repair of failed or incomplete exclusion
devices, will be conducted between September and
March to avoid entrapping nonvolant (nonflying) young
bats inside structures during the maternity season, as
feasible.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Resident Engineer and
Project Biologist
Preconstruction
BIO-45. Installation of Bat-Friendly Gate on Mine Adit
Adjacent to Roadway Segments A, B, and C. To
mitigate impacts to rock roosting bats, RCTC will provide
funding to install a bat-friendly gate on a mine adit
(entrance) located on the Southwestern Riverside
County Multi-Species Reserve (Reserve) adjacent to
Roadway Segments A, B, and C. The gate would deter
human disturbance and restore the roost-site quality of
the mine for sensitive bat species. Reserve staff will
install and maintain the gate.
RCTC Project Manager Preconstruction
219
2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx 49 of 50
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
BIO-46. Provision of Suitable Habitat for Vegetation-
Roosting Bats. During final design, areas proposed for
mature plantings will be determined as part of the
development of the landscaping plan for the Project. In
these areas, mature specimens of native deciduous
trees, such as Fremont cottonwood, black willow, and
western sycamore, and ornamental fan palms,
particularly the California native Washington, or Mexican,
fan palm, will be considered for planting because these
species would provide suitable habitat for vegetation-
roosting bats.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Landscape Architect
and Project Biologist
Design
Threatened and Endangered Species
BIO-27. Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing. RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Engineer,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Design, Preconstruction,
Construction
BIO-32a-c. Modification of the Project Design to
Construct a Gravity-Based Surface Water Diversion
System .
BIO-47. Conducting Clearance of Riparian Habitat
Outside Riparian Bird Active Breeding Season (February
15 through September 15 with the peak generally from
March 1 through June 30). Clearing of riparian habitat
should be conducted outside the active breeding season
(February 15 through September 15 with the peak
generally from March 1 through June 30). For each year
of construction, if vegetation removal occurs in riparian
habitats during the nonbreeding season for riparian birds,
then preconstruction surveys are not required. However,
if vegetation removal must occur in riparian habitats
during the breeding season for least Bell’s vireos or
southwestern willow flycatchers during any construction
year, then preconstruction surveys will be required to
comply with the MSHCP. Additionally, preconstruction
surveys should be conducted no more than three days
prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities
to determine the presence of nesting birds. If least Bell’s
vireos or southwestern willow flycatchers are detected,
the appropriate resource manager will be contacted to
determine if vegetation removal activities can proceed
under specific conditions.
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Biologist and
Resident Engineer
Preconstruction,
Construction
220
50 of 50 2016-10_Appendix E - Environmental Commitments Record.docx
Date: October 2016
Environmental Coordinator:
Phone No: 000-000-0000
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD
(ECR)
08-RIV-79
KP R25.4/R54.4
PM R15.78/R33.80
EA 494000/PN 0800000784
Construct Highway
Task and Brief Description
Responsible Branch/
Staff Timing/ Phase NSSP Req.
Action Taken to
Comply with
Task
Task
Completed
Remarks
Environmental
Compliance
Initial Date Initial Date
Invasive Species
BIO-1. Landscaping Plans
RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Landscape
Architect and Project
Biologist
Design
BIO-2. Avoid the Use of Invasive and Non-Native Plants RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Project Landscape
Architect and Project
Biologist
Design
BIO-35a-c. Avoid the Spread of Invasive Plant Species RCTC Project Manager
in conjunction with the
Landscape Architect,
Resident Engineer,
and Project Biologist
Design, Construction
221
17336.00500\25514656.2 1
Agreement No. 02-31-043-10
AMENDMENT NO. 10
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH FEDERAL FUNDING/ASSISTANCE
STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT
1. PARTIES AND DATE
This Amendment No. 10 to the Agreement for Professional Services is made and
entered into as of this ______ day of ___________, 2017, by and between the
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“Commission”) and CH2M
HILL, INC., a Florida corporation ("Consultant").
2. RECITALS
2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into Agreement No.
02-31-043-00 dated on or about February 13, 2002, for the purpose of
providing professional engineering services in connection with the State
Route 79 Realignment project (the "Master Agreement").
2.2 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No.
1 to the Master Agreement, dated January 12, 2005, for the purpose of
providing additional compensation in order to include additional
engineering and environmental studies, and other tasks, required to
complete the Project Report and the Environmental Document for the
Realignment of State Route Between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman
Springs Road, and to extend the term of the Master Agreement.
2.3 The Commission and the Contractor have entered into an Amendment No.
2 to the Master Agreement, dated September 16, 2005, for the purpose of
reallocating a portion of the compensation approved for the Services
pursuant to Amendment No. 1, amending the Scope of Services, and
providing additional compensation for the purpose of including aerial
photography and mapping and additional cultural surveys for the State
Route 79 Realignment project.
2.4 The Commission and the Contractor have entered into an Amendment No.
3 to the Master Agreement, dated April 13, 2006, to amend the Scope of
Schedule of Services, based on changes in the Project description, and to
provide additional compensation for the purposes of providing additional
ATTACHMENT 3
222
17336.00500\25514656.2
2
biological and cultural resources for survey support, field exploration work
and other services for the State Route 79 Realignment project.
2.5 The Commission and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 4
to the Master Agreement, dated March 22, 2007, to amend the Scope and
Schedule of Services, based on changes in the Project description, and to
provide additional compensation for the purposes of providing additional
biological and cultural resources for survey support, field exploration work
and other services for the State Route 79 Realignment project.
2.6 The Commission and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 5
to the Master Agreement, dated July 18, 2005, to amend the Scope of
Services, to include additional tasks, to include a new Schedule of
Services, to extend the term of the Master Agreement, and to provide
additional compensation for the State Route 79 Realignment project.
2.7 The Commission and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 6
to the Master Agreement, dated March 22, 2010, to extend the term of the
Master Agreement for the State Route 79 Realignment project.
2.8 The Commission and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 7
to the Master Agreement, dated December 17, 2012, to extend the term of
the Master Agreement for the State Route 79 Realignment project.
2.9 The Commission and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 8
to the Master Agreement, dated July 31, 2013, to extend the term of the
Master Agreement, revise the Scope of Services, include an additional
Schedule of Services, and provide additional compensation for the State
Route 79 Realignment project.
2.10 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No.
9 to the Master Agreement, dated June 8, 2016, to revise the Scope of
Services for the State Route 79 Realignment project.
2.11 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to revise
the Scope of Services for the State Route 79 Realignment project.
3. TERMS
3.1 The Scope of Services for the Master Agreement shall be amended to
include Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, required
to perform post environmental impact report (EIR)/ environmental impact
statement (EIS) closeout tasks including Biological Resources Mitigation,
as more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached to this Amendment and
incorporated herein by reference.
223
17336.00500\25514656.2
3
3.2 The maximum compensation for Services performed pursuant to this
Amendment shall be Three Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred
Fifty-Five Dollars ($358,355). Work shall be performed at the rates set forth
in Exhibit “B” attached to this Amendment and incorporated herein by
reference.
3.3 The total not-to-exceed amount of the Master Agreement, as amended by
this Amendment, shall be increased from Thirty-One Million Seven Hundred
Forty-Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars ($31,742,166) to
Thirty-Two Million One Hundred Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-One
Dollars ($32,100,521).
3.4 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master
Agreement, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 through 9, including without
limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force
and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment.
[Signatures on following page]
224
17336.00500\25514656.2
4
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-043-10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on
the date first herein above written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CH2M HILL, INC.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: _____________________________ By: _________________________
Anne Mayer, Executive Director Signature
__________________________
Name
__________________________
Title
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest:
By: _____________________________ By: ________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel to the Riverside County Its: ________________________
Transportation Commission
* A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers.
One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second
signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer
or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.
If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to
the Commission.
225
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
[Attached behind this page]
226
AGENDA ITEM 9
Agenda Item 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 26, 2017
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Agreement for a Regional Truck Study and Development and Implementation
of a Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1)Award Agreement No. 17‐65‐005‐00 to WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. for a regional truck
study and development and implementation of a regional logistics mitigation fee for a
two‐year term, in an amount of $925,017, plus a contingency amount of $49,983, for a
total amount not to exceed $975,000;
2)Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3)Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency
amount as may be required for these services.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In July 2016, the Commission, the county of Riverside (County), city of Moreno Valley
(Moreno Valley), and Highland Fairview entities came to a settlement agreement in response to
litigation involving the World Logistics Center (WLC). The Commission and the County had filed
suit challenging the environmental impact report in order to ensure adequate mitigation to
address added impacts created by the WLC project. Additional lawsuits were filed by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District and a number of environmental organizations.
The eventual settlement agreement was finalized to provide needed funding for infrastructure
efforts that would help mitigate the impacts of this kind of development throughout the County
and to do so in a way that would encourage ongoing economic development and job creation for
County residents.
A key provision of the settlement requires the Commission, the County, Moreno Valley,
and Highland Fairview to conduct a regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics‐related
regional fee. A result of the study could be a new a program that the County and cities in the
County could adopt. Such a program would, for example, set a fee on new distribution center
warehouses, based on facility size, to help pay for road improvements.
227
Agenda Item 9
If the County or at least 75 percent of the Commission’s member cities adopt a regional
warehouse fee within two years after a final court judgment is issued, Highland Fairview will pay
65 cents per square foot for each operating warehouse within the WLC. If no regional fee is
adopted, the fee would be 50 cents per square foot. Proceeds would be used for projects
identified as part of the regional truck study.
The County, Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview are each required to pay $250,000 to the
Commission to conduct the regional transportation study and evaluate the potential for a
regional, logistics‐related fee on distribution centers and warehouses. The Commission is also
required to contribute $250,000 to the effort.
As per the terms of the agreement, Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview’s payment toward the
regional study is required to be made no more than 60 days after a final judgment determines
that the WLC’s EIR fully complies with state environmental law and that the WLC may legally
proceed. A final judgment has not been reached since litigation between Moreno Valley,
Highland Fairview, and a number of environmental groups has not been resolved.
Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview also must pay $100,000 each for logistics‐related studies.
Of that, $100,000 will pay for truck and logistics‐related studies by the Center for Environmental
Research and Technology. The Community Translational Research Institute will use the other
$100,000 for public health research and programs.
The settlement agreement also requires another $3 million to be paid to the Commission,
$2 million of which would be used for engineering studies and project development work for
expanding State Route 60 between the Interstate 215 and Gilman Springs Road. The other
$1 million would go toward the same work for the Theodore Street interchange at SR‐60.
Those amounts will be paid within 10 days after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the
4 million square foot of warehouse space within the WLC.
All told, the overall settlement between the Commission, the County, Moreno Valley, and
Highland Fairview has the potential of generating as much as $26.4 million for regional
transportation improvements from this single development. Approval of a regional fee would
then have the potential of generating additional revenue on similar developments in the future.
A copy of the settlement agreement is attached.
Implementing the Study
Long before a fee program can ever be instituted is the need for a study that quantifies the
magnitude of future, similar developments throughout Riverside County, and the anticipated
truck traffic impacts of these developments on major highway facilities. While the study effort
will involve extensive evaluation of the impacts of logistics‐related development on the highway
network in Riverside County, the study's core focus will be establishing a nexus for an impact fee
program to mitigate the anticipated truck traffic impacts.
228
Agenda Item 9
The parameters of what needs to be studied are stipulated in the California Mitigation Fee Act
and have been strengthened by subsequent decisions in state and federal courts. The standard
for determining a fee requires the nexus demonstrate rough proportionality between the impact
being created and the level of mitigation to resolve the impact. This means the process for
determining the fee is not intended to be an exact science, but rather a fair and balanced
estimation.
Only impacts attributable to new warehousing and logistics development within Riverside County
will be assessed by the fee. The California Mitigation Fee Act explicitly requires that existing
needs must be accounted for and cannot be the responsibility of new development for
mitigation. Similarly, the impacts created by new development outside of the County and
resulting in trips that pass through the County cannot be made the responsibility of new
development in Riverside County to mitigate (unless a portion of the trip is accessing new
development within the County). Differentiating the impacts of new Riverside County logistics
developments from all other traffic effects will be the primary technical challenge of this study.
Fee programs must be established using a fair, sound, and rational methodology, and must not
be determined arbitrarily and capriciously. In practice, this means that fees must be evidence‐
based or risk being thrown out by the courts.
The California Mitigation Fee Act specifies that revenues generated by an impact fee program
must be expended within five years. Recognizing projects on the region's freeways to
accommodate additional truck trips can be very costly; a considerable portion of the need for
these improvements may be determined to be attributable to existing needs, other unrelated
development activity, and/or pass through trips; and that the revenues from warehouse and
logistics uses may be limited by the rate of development activity, it will be necessary to consider
a full range of project types as well as the potential cash flows associated with a fee, along with
other established funding programs, to ensure a program of projects can be delivered in a time
frame that satisfies the requirements for revenue expenditures.
Moreover, Riverside County is home to two other regional transportation mitigation fee
programs – the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and
the Coachella Valley TUMF – which are often referred to as the TUMF programs. A regional
logistics fee as established in the settlement agreement is intended to be separate and apart
from the existing TUMF programs and special care will be needed to ensure that a new program
will not impact nor harm either program.
Once these formidable technical challenges are addressed, the Commission and cities throughout
the County will then be faced with the question of whether or not to implement a regional truck
fee program. As previously stated, if the County or 75 percent of the incorporated cities approve
a regional program, there is a significant difference in the mitigation fee that would be paid by
Highland Fairview.
229
Agenda Item 9
It is important to note that consideration of this item is solely for the award of a contract to
conduct the required study. Any decision to implement a regional fee program or to seek
approval from cities to implement such a program will require future Commission action after
the completion of the study.
The Consultant Procurement Process
In order to move forward with the implementation of the truck study, the Commission
implemented a competitive request for proposals to seek consultant help with the expertise and
resources to conduct a regional truck study that might lead to the implementation of regional
logistics mitigation fee.
Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for
this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with
price and other factors considered. Non‐price factors include elements such as qualifications of
firm, personnel, and the ability to respond to the Commission’s needs for a regional truck study
and development and implementation of a regional logistics mitigation fee as set forth under the
terms of the request for proposals (RFP) No. 17‐65‐005‐00.
RFP No. 17‐65‐005‐00 was released on November 3, 2016. A public notice was advertised in the
Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission’s PlanetBids website, which is
accessible through the Commission’s website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 564 firms,
99 of which are located in Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids site, 28 firms downloaded
the RFP; 6 of these firms are located in Riverside County. A pre‐proposal conference was held on
November 10, and attended by 6 firms; 3 firms are local to Riverside County. Staff responded to
all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the November 17 clarification deadline
date. Three firms – Iteris, Inc. (Santa Ana); Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (Los Angeles); and WSP
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (San Bernardino) – submitted proposals prior to the 2:00 p.m.
submittal deadline on December 8. All three firms submitted responsive and responsible
proposals. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the three proposals were
evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission, Western Riverside
Council of Governments (WRCOG), and Riverside County Transportation and Land Management
Agency staff.
Based on the evaluation committee’s assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the
terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee short listed and invited two firms – Cambridge
Systematics, Inc. and WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. – to the interview phase of the evaluation
and selection process. Interviews were conducted on January 5.
Subsequently, the evaluation committee determined WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. to be the
most qualified firm to provide services for a regional truck study and development and
implementation of a regional logistics mitigation fee.
230
Agenda Item 9
As a result of the evaluation committee’s assessment of the written proposals and interviews,
the evaluation committee recommends contract award to WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. for a
two‐year term, in the amount of $925,017, plus a contingency of $49,983, for a total amount not
to exceed $975,000, as this firm earned the highest total evaluation score. Darren Henderson
will serve as the project manager for the consultant.
The overall evaluation ranking, based on highest to lowest total evaluation score, and the total
price are presented in the following table.
Firm Price Overall Ranking
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. $925,017 1
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. $899,805 2
Iteris, Inc. $453,600* 3
*Iteris, Inc.’s price excludes other direct costs, which were subsequently clarified and confirmed with the two
shortlisted firms.
Next Steps
The WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. proposal and subsequent scope of work will include five tasks:
1) Existing and Future Conditions Analysis;
2) Funding Cost Analysis;
3) Preparation of the Nexus Study;
4) Developing a Fee Allocation Structure and Implementing Mechanism; and
5) Study Recommendations.
WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. has extensive experience in completing nexus studies for
mitigation fee programs and has been extensively involved in the Western Riverside County
TUMF program. Looking back to 2005‐2008, the Commission retained WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff,
Inc. to conduct a freeway strategic study to develop a freeway impact fee. This assignment was
in response to a litigation settlement between the city of Temecula and the County. Although
the program was not implemented, the Commission obtained valuable information regarding
freeway capacity needs as part of the study.
The Commission’s professional services agreement will be entered into with the consultant
subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director and pursuant to legal counsel review.
Staff oversight of the contract will maximize the effectiveness of the consultant and minimize
costs to the Commission.
231
Agenda Item 9
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: No
N/A Year: FY 2016/17
FY 2017/18+ Amount: $350,000
$625,000
Source of Funds:
Local Transportation Funds, Settlement
contributions from Highland Fairview,
Moreno Valley, and County
Budget Adjustment: Yes
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 002318 81501 106 67 81501
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 01/17/2017
Attachments:
1) Settlement Agreement
2) Draft Agreement No. 17‐65‐005‐00
232
ATTACHMENT 1
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
1
17336.00000\8752982.2
Agreement No. 17-65-005-00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR A REGIONAL TRUCK STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE
WITH PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, INC.
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2017,
by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the
Commission") and Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. ("Consultant"), a CORPORATION.
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the
provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the
terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a
professional consultant, experienced in providing [___INSERT TYPE OF
SERVICES___] services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is
familiar with the plans of Commission.
2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain
consulting services for the regional truck study and development and implementation of
a regional logistics mitigation fee Project ("Project") as set forth herein.
3. TERMS.
3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to
furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and
customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting
services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding
the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter
referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to,
and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules
and regulations.
3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first
specified above to February 28, 2019, unless earlier terminated as provided herein.
ATTACHMENT 2
243
2
17336.00000\8752982.2
Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet
any other established schedules and deadlines.
3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of
Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to
perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate
Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to
Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission,
Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet
the Schedule of Services.
3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates.
The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will
determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the
requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent
contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains
the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this
Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on
behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be
under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages,
salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of
Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible
for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not
limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and
workers' compensation insurance.
3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission.
3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to
Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under
this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable,
Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience
upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant
cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to
terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this
Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows:
Darren Henderson (Project Manager and Nexus Determination Lead); Danny Wu
(Deputy Project Manager); Steven Brown – Fehr&Peers (Freight Analysis Lead); Joe
Bryan (Freight Analysis); Rosella Picado (Travel Modeling Lead); Don Hubbard (Traffic
Analysis Lead); Robert Morin (Conceptual Engineering Lead).
3.7 Commission’s Representative. Commission hereby designates
Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the
244
3
17336.00000\8752982.2
performance of this Agreement ("Commission’s Representative"). Commission's
representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes
under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than
Commission's Representative or his or her designee.
3.8 Consultant’s Representative. Consultant hereby designates Darren
Henderson, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of
this Agreement ("Consultant’s Representative"). Consultant’s Representative shall
have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes
under this Agreement. The Consultant’s Representative shall supervise and direct the
Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all
means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory
coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with
Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's
staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times.
3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services
under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard
generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the
State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the
professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all
employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the
Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and
subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever
nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and
approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall
perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any
Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant’s
failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully
responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant’s errors and
omissions.
3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and
without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for
all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its
officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
245
4
17336.00000\8752982.2
3.12 Insurance.
3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work
under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that
it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance
companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any
subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance
required under this section.
3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to
procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such
insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage:
(A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at
least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or
exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto
Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers’
Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required
by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
(B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance
or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit
shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be
twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for
bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers’
Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by
the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s Practices Liability limits of
$1,000,000 per accident.
3.12.3 [Reserved]
3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms
approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
(A) General Liability.
(i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must
include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal
246
5
17336.00000\8752982.2
Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed
operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse
and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this
Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent consultants
coverage.
(ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or
provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for
claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion
contrary to this Agreement.
(iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its
directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO
endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact
same coverage.
(iv) The additional insured coverage under the
policy shall be “primary and non-contributory” and will not seek contribution from the
Commission’s insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01
04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy
shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the
ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible;
and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission,
its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an
unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage.
Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall
not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
(C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability
Coverage.
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the
provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer
to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance
in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such
provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of
subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and
agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work
performed by the Consultant.
247
6
17336.00000\8752982.2
(D) All Coverages.
(i) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to
the limits set forth hereunder.
(ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits
contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other
requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall
be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader
than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or
limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore,
the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits
specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of
coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured;
whichever is greater.
(iii) The limits of insurance required in this
Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess
insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a
provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis
for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before
the Commission’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a
named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a “following form”
basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies).
(iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at
least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this
Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written
notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the
required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the
Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional
Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective
date of cancellation or expiration.
(v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to
be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such
coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the
work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended
reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this
Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by
another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of
this Agreement.
(vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types
and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of
248
7
17336.00000\8752982.2
said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit
or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant
to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning
indemnification.
(vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement,
any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these
specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the
duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission
will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts
sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission
may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide
complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project.
(viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its
directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any
liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
Each insurance policy required by this Agreement
shall be endorsed to state that:
3.12.5 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles
or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the
Commission does not approve the deductibles or self-insured retentions as presented,
Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.
3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in
California, and satisfactory to the Commission.
3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish
Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage
required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by
that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be
received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
at any time.
3.12.8 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall
not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract
until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have
249
8
17336.00000\8752982.2
secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general
liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed
to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an
endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the
Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular
subcontractors or subconsultants.
3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to
avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the
Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety
of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the
work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be
limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B)
instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe
walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space
procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and
wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries;
and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety
measures.
3.14 Fees and Payment.
3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation,
including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at
the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not
exceed nine hundred and twenty-five thousand and seventeen dollars ($925,017)
without written approval of Commission's Executive Director (“Total Compensation”).
Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be
compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to
Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of
Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services
and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the
subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement.
Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and
pay all approved charges thereon.
3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be
reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission.
3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement,
Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra
Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the
250
9
17336.00000\8752982.2
proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate
would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform,
nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's
Executive Director.
3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged
under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall
allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit,
and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created
pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data,
documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three
(3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
3.16 Termination of Agreement.
3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written
notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and
without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying
the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for
those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through
the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further
compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as
provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or
unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind
prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this
Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other
information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is
terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such
terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those
terminated.
3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
251
10
17336.00000\8752982.2
CONSULTANT: COMMISSION:
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. Riverside County
451 East Vanderbilt Way Transportation Commission
San Bernardino, CA 92408 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Douglas B. Sawyer Attn: Executive Director
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when
mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid
and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed
adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality.
3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive
and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub-license any
and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings,
estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any
tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data
magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or
caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”).
Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that
Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data
the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement.
Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal
right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data.
Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data
which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to
Consultant by the Commission.
Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission’s sole risk.
3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have
and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other
proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials,
data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and
any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including
but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer media (“Intellectual Property”) prepared or developed by or on behalf of
Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property
prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement.
252
11
17336.00000\8752982.2
The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in
Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid
for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with
Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute
separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual
Property upon request of Commission.
Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate
written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right
to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or
following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above-referenced
Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission.
All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by
the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are
not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer
applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless
otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license
for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein.
Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and
perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub-license any and all Intellectual Property
otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative,
collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement.
3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans,
procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written
information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant
in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission,
be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's
name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services
or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production
or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission.
3.18.4 Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees,
volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of
this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade
name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence
253
12
17336.00000\8752982.2
of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any
method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted.
3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with
one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as
may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the
other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with
this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and
recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions.
3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and
volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action,
costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or
persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any
alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection
with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without
limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related
costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant’s own cost, expense and
risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind
that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its
directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such
suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and
its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any
and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by each
of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided.
Consultant’s obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any,
received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants,
employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's
Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited,
to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain
to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement.
3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be
supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties.
3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
254
13
17336.00000\8752982.2
3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The
Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this
Project.
3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without
the prior written consent of Commission.
3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts.
3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has
not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall
have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability.
3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no
member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with
Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or
anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of
personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the
performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of
the employee’s regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time.
Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the
Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement,
where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing
this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited.
3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall
notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission’s written consent, prior to
accepting work to assist with or participate in a third-party lawsuit or other legal or
administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement.
3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an
equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex
or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related
to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment
255
14
17336.00000\8752982.2
advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provi-
sions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action
Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or
hereinafter enacted.
3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the
work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without
prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision
making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant
certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et
seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000
et seq. (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates
and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance”
projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or
“maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total
compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing
Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing
rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant
shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification
or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon
request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the
project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected
officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities,
costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the
Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.30.1 DIR Registration. Effective March 1, 2015, if the Services
are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project,
then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all
subconsultants must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. If
applicable, Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and
require the same of any subconsultants. This Project may also be subject to
compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It
shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and
labor compliance requirements.
3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the
employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor
Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified
employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the
ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice
shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or
trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to
which he or she is registered.
256
15
17336.00000\8752982.2
If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services,
Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any
apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering
applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub-consultant for the
employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant
and any sub-consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as
well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or
trade in the area of the work hereunder.
The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance
with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the
California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant.
3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion
upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not
be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or
relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be
deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or
times.
3.33 Eight-Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor
Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of
any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during
any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment
for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours
worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight-Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the
Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission
as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by
him, or by any sub-consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such
workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day
and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime
violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the
Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law.
3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a
subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project,
Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the
Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until
notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the
Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order.
3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature
are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not
limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related
to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination.
257
16
17336.00000\8752982.2
3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party
beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.
3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original.
3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and
correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached
exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language,
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and
obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties’ understanding concerning
the performance of the Services.
3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or
marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have
no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein.
3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate,
or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein,
without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null
and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or
interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power
and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the
Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement
have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each
respective Party.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
258
17
17336.00000\8752982.2
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR A REGIONAL TRUCK STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE
WITH PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, INC.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first
written above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, INC.
By: _________________________ By: ____________________________
[INSERT NAME] Signature
Chairman
__________________________
Name
[NOT NEEDED IF APPROVED BY COMMISSION]
__________________________
Title
By: ____________________________
Anne Mayer
Executive Director
Approved as to Form: Attest:
By: ____________________________ By: ________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP Its: Secretary
General Counsel
259
18
17336.00000\8752982.2
EXHIBIT "A" - SCOPE OF SERVICES [ TO BE INSERTED]
EXHIBIT "B" - SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [ TO BE INSERTED]
EXHIBIT "C" – COMPENSATION [ TO BE INSERTED]
260
AGENDA ITEM 10
Agenda Item 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 26, 2017
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Responsibilities for Administering the Western Riverside County
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1)Provide direction to staff regarding the potential evaluation of the administration of the
Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program –
specifically addressing the responsibilities of the Commission and the Western Riverside
Council of Governments (WRCOG) with respect to the TUMF program; and
2)Should the Commission direct staff to evaluate potential changes to the administration of
the Western Riverside County TUMF program, the Chair should appoint an ad hoc
Committee of Western Riverside County Commissioners that will return to the
Commission with recommendations within 120 days.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the January Commission meeting, Commissioner Kevin Jeffries asked to place an item on
the next Commission agenda to discuss the possibility of consolidating all responsibilities for the
Western Riverside County TUMF program. In making this request, Commissioner Jeffries
suggested that there could be efficiencies and more clarity in having the Commission undertake
the responsibility of administering the entire program rather than the current framework, which
places TUMF Zone programs under the aegis of WRCOG while the TUMF Regional Arterial
Program is overseen by the Commission. The administration of TUMF – including the periodic
update of the Nexus Study – has been led by WRCOG since the program was launched.
Consolidating Western Riverside County TUMF responsibilities would create an opportunity in
which the Commission oversees both the Measure A and TUMF programs, which could lead to
efficiencies, although the process to make such a change could raise a number of challenges. In
determining whether to consider evaluating options for changes in Western County TUMF
administration, a review of the history of Riverside County’s TUMF programs can provide helpful
background information.
261
Agenda Item 10
The Initial Link Between the TUMF Program and Measure A
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) first established a TUMF program on
July 1, 1989. The requirement to establish a fee program was included in the Coachella Valley
Expenditure Plan, which was part of the first Measure A program approved by voters in
November 1988. Partly due to the efforts of CVAG, both Measure A programs had, and continue
to have, a return to source component, which ensures revenue generated in any of the three
geographic areas of the county are returned to be spent on projects within that geographical
area.
In addition to advocating for the return to source provision on the ballot, CVAG also included and
was successful in reaching consensus for language in the expenditure plan that called for the
establishment of a fee program and the requirement for local jurisdictions to participate in order
to be eligible for local streets and road funding.
The exact wording of the provision, which is attached, reads:
“The Coachella Valley Association of Governments will play a role in determining
allocations to local governments for streets and roads. Local streets and roads funds will
be provided to Coachella Valley cities and the County if they participate in the Uniform
Traffic Mitigation Fee program to assist in financing the priority Regional Arterial System.
If local agencies choose not to levy the additional developer fees, the fund they would
otherwise receive for local streets and roads will be added to the Measure A funds for the
Regional Arterial System. In addition, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
will have the discretion to provide a portion of these funds to increase funding for
specialized transit programs for seniors and handicapped people, bus replacement or
other transit programs which may improve air quality.”
The timing of the provision came soon after the passage of the California Mitigation Fee Act in
1987. As part of its work to implement the TUMF, CVAG developed a process to perform a
Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TTPS) to identify and quantify regional arterial needs
in the Coachella Valley. This process continues to this day.
Linking the Next Measure A with TUMF in Western Riverside County
The 1988 Measure A Expenditure Plan did not include a provision for a TUMF Program in Western
Riverside County, but that changed when Riverside County voters approved an extension to
Measure A in 2002.
“ . . .The funds made available in the Western County area will be distributed to the cities
and the county by a formula based 75% on proportionate population and 25% on revenues
generated by Measure “A”. In order to be eligible for these funds, each agency will be
required to: 1) File a Five‐Year Capital Improvement Program, updated annually, with the
Commission; 2) Participate in a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program
262
Agenda Item 10
to be developed and administered by the Commission or the Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG); and, 3) Participate in the Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) currently under development by the County of Riverside by endorsing the Permit
Application and signing the Implementation Agreement.
The TUMF Program shall be adopted according to all applicable laws and shall provide
that the first $400 million of TUMF revenues will be made available to the Commission to
fund equally the: 1) Regional Arterial System, as described above; and, 2) Development of
New Corridors (“CETAP”) described above.”
This language requiring participation in the TUMF and MSHCP appears under the Local Streets
and Roads section of the Expenditure Plan; however, WRCOG is also specifically mentioned in the
Regional Arterial System section of the Expenditure Plan in this section:
“The freeway and state highway system can no longer be expected to handle the traffic
demands for travel between and through the cities of the Western County area, with the
development projected for the future. A system of regional arterials (major local
roadways) with limited access, freeway interchanges, grade separations, and coordinated
traffic signals are needed to supplement the highway backbone system. The Western
Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), in conjunction with the cities and the County,
has developed this system of roadways to meet this need. This roadway system will be
periodically updated by the Commission, or the Western Riverside Council of
Governments, to reflect actual development trends.
Funding to widen existing roads and construct new roads on this system will be funded by
an estimated $300 million in revenues generated by Measure “A” and by matching
revenues to be generated by the cities and County implementing a Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) administered by the Commission or the Western Riverside Council
of Governments (WRCOG).”
One nuance to note is the Commission and WRCOG are mentioned three separate times in the
Expenditure Plan. In each case, responsibilities for updating the arterial or administering the
program does not specify exact responsibilities but instead states that a task will be administered
or updated by the Commission or WRCOG.
The entire 2009‐2039 Measure A Expenditure Plan is included as Attachment 2.
Launching the Western Riverside County TUMF Program
In 2003, the Commission and WRCOG developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
(Attachment 3) in order to formalize and implement the working relationship between the two
agencies and to address the disbursement and use of the $400 million of TUMF revenues
specified in the Measure A ordinance. Transferring the first $400 million directly to the
Commission was one option; however, after numerous meetings throughout the county with
263
Agenda Item 10
various jurisdictions, it was made clear the integrity and effectiveness of the Western Riverside
County TUMF program required a detailed plan for the use of the $400 million. A complicating
factor was the voter‐approved Measure A extension did not take effect until 2009. The approval
of the MOU made it possible for TUMF funding to flow immediately to regional arterials and pay
down the $400 Million TUMF obligation to Measure A.
The MOU was originally intended to address the expenditure of TUMF funds until
April 1, 2009, under the following allocations:
a)48.1 percent to the Commission for regional arterials and CETAP development;
b)48.1 percent to the five TUMF Improvement Zones which are outlined in the
WRCOG TUMF Administrative Plan; and
c)3.8 percent for regional transit.
Funds received by the Commission were eligible for the development of regional arterials or for
Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) development
needs including mitigation, although funding would be precluded from being spent on CETAP
corridors that are not designated on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The TUMF
Improvement Zones were established by WRCOG as part of the agency’s development of a TUMF
administrative plan and were intended to direct funding to ensure a significant portion of TUMF
dollars raised are spent in the general area in which the dollars are raised. The 3.8 percent
allocation for regional public transit capital projects was also an outgrowth of the WRCOG TUMF
Nexus Study that identified various capital projects for public transit needs.
These actions and the first few years of the TUMF program occurred during record economic and
residential growth in Riverside County. For example, in FY 2005/06, the Western Riverside
County TUMF program generated more than $180 million in revenue. Of that total, $85.2 million
was allocated to the Commission and was split equally between the regional arterial and New
Corridor (CETAP) programs. Given the growth that was taking place, there was some hope the
$400 million requirement could be realized by the time the Measure A extension went into effect
in 2009 or shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, those hopes were dashed with the recession in
2007. As a comparison to the $180 million peak in FY 2005/06, the Commission’s revenue
projections for FY 2017/18 projects a regional total of over $41 million with approximately $20
million allocated to the Commission. Through FY 2015/16, the Commission has realized
approximately $312 million in revenue from the Western Riverside County TUMF program since
its inception.
The establishment of the MOU led to a separation of responsibilities between the Commission
and WRCOG. The Commission established a robust regional arterial program, which continues
to be delivered and has allocated funding primarily for the Mid County Parkway, a CETAP corridor.
WRCOG carried out the complex work of the development of a TUMF ordinance and
administrative plan and the development and update of the Nexus Study, which is required
264
Agenda Item 10
by state law and identifies eligible projects for the program. This is an ongoing effort which must
be periodically updated and requires a high level of interaction and cooperation with local
jurisdictions and the stakeholders who pay the TUMF assessments.
A New MOU – Still in Place Today
Worsening economic conditions and more realistic expectations led the Commission and WRCOG
to adopt a new MOU in late 2008 (Attachment 4). This action lifted the $400 million cap and
further memorialized the responsibilities of each agency and retained the same funding split. It
continues to govern the relationship between the two agencies to this day. The MOU also
established a coordination committee comprised of Board Officers from each agency to review
the program.
Considering Changes and Next Steps
Staff does not have a formal recommendation on whether or not to pursue structural changes to
the Western Riverside County TUMF program and looks forward to policy direction from the
Commission. Reviewing government processes is often a helpful exercise and was reflected in
Commissioner Jeffries’ remarks. Should the Commission decide to consider potential changes to
the program or the existing MOU, staff recommends the appointment of an ad hoc committee
of Western Riverside County Commissioners to provide specific direction to Commission staff
which could then require action from both agencies. A change in the program would likely
require changes in staffing and budgets, legal review of potential impacts, and consent from the
affected agencies, which would also include the Riverside Transit Agency and every city in
Western Riverside County, which has approved a TUMF ordinance. An ad hoc committee could
evaluate the potential costs and benefits of any recommendations prior to Commission action.
Although this would initially be a Commission effort, it would require close cooperation between
the staff of both agencies, and recommendations could also be vetted by the coordination
committee identified in the current MOU.
There is no fiscal impact related to the staff recommendations; however, there may be financial
implications as a result of future Commission actions.
Attachments:
1) Measure A Ordinance 88-1
2) Measure A Ordinance 02-001
3) TUMF MOU No. M23-002
4) Revised and Restated MOU
265
ATTACHMENT 1
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
ATTACHMENT 2
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
ATTACHMENT 3
308
309
310
311
ATTACHMENT 4
312
313
314
315
316