Residents and Environmental Groups Oppose Mid-County Parkway Project in Riverside County

In Riverside County, a proposed highway project is facing opposition from locals and environmental groups. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (“RCTC”) approved the Mid-County Parkway EIR last month, allowing the project to proceed to the next stage. This freeway would be an entirely new road connecting the I-215 in Perris and the SR-79 in San Jacinto, and would span about 16 miles. More information can be found in the complete Environmental Impact Report.

A lawsuit was swiftly filed by environmentalist groups, who are questioning the necessity of the proposed freeway, in light of the wildlife sanctuaries that would be threatened by its construction. The lawsuit names at least two endangered species that can be found in the San Jacinto Valley, which would be directly impacted by the project.

Residential and commercial properties could also be affected by the project, which may be acquired by the State through the use of eminent domain. The Press Enterprise reports that almost 400 people may be displaced in order to build the Mid-County Parkway and the RCTC is preparing residents for potential property takings:

“We’ve been very proactive in explaining the potential right-of-way impacts of the project,” Standiford, [John Standiford, RCTC deputy executive director] said. “We will comply with state and federal laws regarding acquiring right of way.”

The lawsuit against the project further alleges that construction of the 6-lane freeway, is, in addition to not meeting standards for eco-friendliness, is not cost-effective, and will discourage public transportation development. In addition, it claims that future traffic forecasts for the area found in the EIR are overstated.

According to the project website, there is a pressing need for an east-west freeway, as none currently exists, because it’s considered an effective solution for Riverside County’s traffic concerns.

The SR 710 Environmental Study Reveals Important Impacts on residents of Los Angeles County

On March 6, 2015 Caltrans District 7 released the Draft Environment Impact Report for the SR 710 project.  This long awaited study considered five alternatives for reducing traffic congestion, and determined that the most effective option would be a freeway tunnel bridging the existing gap between Alhambra and Pasadena.

The Los Angeles Daily News reports that locals hold strong opinions regarding the proposed alternatives for improving transportation in this area.  A group called the 5-City Alliance is supporting the light rail option, claiming that a freeway tunnel which focuses more on improving conditions for vehicles like cars and trucks, will not ease traffic as well as the implementation of public transportation. Light rail, however, will have cultural as well as aesthetic impacts. This excerpt from the above-referenced Daily News article describes possible effects of the light rail on nearby property owners:

“…impacts from the light-rail train include the displacement of 15 businesses along Mednik Avenue south of the 60 Freeway; acquisition of 58 full properties in Alhambra, East L.A., Monterey Park, Pasadena and South Pasadena; and the relocation of 73 businesses and the displacement of 645 employees.”      

The SR 710 EIR study explores several alternatives as possible means for improving the traffic conditions in the area. The first one is the Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (“TSM/TDM”) which is a series of improvements to streets, intersections and existing equipment such as traffic signals. There is also the required no-build alternative. The remaining three alternatives would have the most impact. These are the Bus Rapid Transit Alternative, the Light Rail Alternative and the Freeway Tunnel Alternative.

According to the EIR, the four alternatives other than the no-build, would have land use impacts ranging from 16-47 temporary construction easements and acquisition of land ranging in size from .6 to 1.5 acres.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the freeway double decker tunnel is the most expensive option, with a $5.6 billion price tag. A slightly more cost effective alternative is a narrower double decker tunnel where north and southbound traffic move in opposite direction on each level.  The light rail cost is approximately half of that of the larger tunnel, but it’s also the option that would take the longest, at an estimated six years to build.

State May use Eminent Domain To Allow The Public Access to a Beach in Northern California

A property in Northern California is the subject of a dispute over an easement for public beach access, which could possibly lead to eminent domain proceedings:

“The State Lands Commission may use powers never employed in its 77-year history, seizing private land for public use to end a battle between surfers and billionaire venture-capital investor Vinod Khosla, who has been locking a gate at his beach property along California’s Pacific Coast.”

Beach-goers are seeking entry to a portion of the property known as Martins Beach, a destination for surfers, while the homeowner holds the position that the beach is on his property, which is privately owned, and he has no obligation to the locals who want to use it.

The property’s owner, Vinod Khosla, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, filed suit a few years ago to deny access to local surfers to 89 acres of coast which he claims is private property, and which includes Martins Beach. Mr. Khosla’s position is that no right of way is in place to allow the public use of the beach, and as the owner of the property he would be burdened with hiring employees to manage it. A gate that permits access to the beach was intermittently left open by the property owner when he purchased the real estate in 2008 until it was finally completely shut a few years later. In 2014 the court ruled in favor of beach-goers when it ordered the gate on Mr. Khosla's property to remain open.

The State of California has a duty to maintain access to the natural resources from which residents and visitors derive pleasure and enjoyment. On this basis, the state is in negotiations with Mr. Khosla to purchase an easement that would allow public use of his property to access the beach.

Eminent Domain may be used by the state to acquire the right of way if Mr. Khosla does not reach an agreement with state authorities. To prevent the acquisition of his property, or an interest in it, Mr. Khosla would have to argue that providing surfers beach access is not within the definition of eminent domain, which is to say the taking of private property for the greater public good.  At one time, the California Coastal Commision threatened Mr. Khosla with a fine of over $10,000 a day as long as the gate was locked and public beach access was denied.

California High Speed Rail Litigation: Support for the Project in the Form of a Recent Federal Ruling

A ruling came down on December 15^th, which has further eased the way for High Speed Rail to move forward in California. The United States Surface Transportation Board ruled in favor of the High Speed Rail Authority when it decided that the federal government’s actions override the state law invoked in lawsuits against the project.  Specifically, opponents filed suit in several jurisdictions on the basis of the Environmental law known as CEQA, a set of state regulations, which has had the effect of delaying construction on the Fresno-Bakersfield leg of the project.

The High Speed Rail Authority, as agent of the Surface Transportation Board, is empowered by the federal agency to proceed with construction of the HSR in California. The Board ruled that CEQA, as a state law, cannot be used to impose restrictions on the High Speed Rail that result in significant delays in it’s progress. This is because the federal government trumps state laws and regulations. This ruling may set a precedent that can be applied to any future lawsuits against the HSR based on CEQA, thereby speeding up High Speed Rail construction even more.

Any action on the part of the court that eases the pressure of time constraints will be a boost for the High Speed Rail Authority.  As the Authority seeks contractors for the first few legs of Rail Construction, it’s also facing the difficult process of property acquisition, with only 1/5 of the land parcels needed for construction of the Fresno-Madera portion of the project ready for contractors as of November.

There are also cases still pending in the California Supreme Court, both attempting to overturn appellate decisions concerning Proposition 1A, the bond measure funding the High Speed Rail that voters approved in 2008. The original lawsuits claim that the High Speed Rail Authority is in violation of Proposition 1A, because the costs estimates as well as timing concerns for the project have been amended significantly since passage of the law.

Metro Gold Line Update: Testing Starts on Foothill Extension, Eastside Extension Still Awaits Route Decision

The Gold Line, which is a Metro light-rail line that horseshoes from Pasadena at one end to East Los Angeles on the other, has been in the news a lot lately. On December 9th, testing began on the tracks of the first phase of the Foothill Extension, from Pasadena to Azusa, and which will continue in the second phase to Montclair. This phase has less than a year left until completion. Testing on the project checks that a train can pass safely on the newly constructed tracks.

Recently a study was conducted at the behest of the San Bernardino Associated Governments, which assessed possible public transportation routes that would bring travelers to the struggling Ontario Airport. The study found 6 potential routes to the airport, only one of which included bus service, and one of the rail routes suggested would be a continuation of the Gold Line. The estimated costs however are extremely high, and the study does point out that to warrant building a light rail connecting to the airport, the number of annual passengers at the Ontario Airport would have to more than triple.

Finally, the big news on the Gold Line is the hearing in front of the LA County MTA  on the Draft EIR concerning Phase 2 of the Eastside Gold Line Extension. The report set forth two possible routes extending the Gold Line either to Whittier or El Monte, and the board was expected to pick one or the other. Instead, the board asked for a further study to be done that explores the possibility of constructing both routes. The new “technical study” will most likely be done in a few years, and upon its submission to the Board a decision will be made on which of the two routes will be chosen, or if both, which one will be built first. The anticipated completion of the Eastside Gold Line extension is in 20 years.

California High Speed Rail Update

California’s High Speed rail project is steadily moving forward thanks to the state Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal in October from the project’s opponents, and eminent domain proceedings are underway. 

The Sacramento Business Journal reports that eminent domain cases concerning 36 land parcels are pending in the state superior court. These cases have been brought by the state to negotiate with property owners whose land is necessary for construction of the first leg to begin: 

“Owners of six of those parcels have since settled with the state. Of the 30 that remain, 10 are now pending in courthouses in Fresno and Madera counties. None have gone to trial yet.”

This October the California Supreme Court sided with the High Speed Rail Authority when it rejected a request by project opponents to hear their case.  The significance of this move by the state’s highest court is that the Appeal court’s decision to allow the project to proceed will endure. The California High Speed Rail Authority has taken the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case as a gesture of support, while opponents feel that the project proceeding in its current form creates a dangerous precedent. This speaks to the crux of the case against the High Speed Rail, which was based on allegations that the project had veered too far from the initial bond measure approved by California voters. Although there are still lawsuits pending, construction on the first leg of the high speed rail is slated for the beginning of the year, and will be able to continue as planned. The head of the Rail Authority, Jeff Morales, was quoted as saying that construction on the Fresno-Bakersfield stretch will quicken considerably as a result of the high court’s stance. 

Meanwhile, residents of San Diego are frustrated about the lack of information and concrete plans surrounding construction of the southernmost portion of the project.

In the Works: High Desert Corridor Project

The region in San Bernardino County to the East of Los Angeles County, known as Victor Valley, experienced significant growth in the past decade. As a result of this rapid expansion, The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) and Caltrans, along with the towns of Palmdale, Lancaster and Victorville, and others, have joined together to execute a study on transportation improvement in this area. The High Desert Corridor (“HDC”) project is currently in the Draft Environmental Impact Report stage, The HDC footprint reflects the proposed span of this project, which would bridge the 14 and 18 freeways.

State transportation authorities believe that the current infrastructure, which moves commercial vehicles as well as provides transportation to local airports, does not support increased traffic volume. The goal of the HDC is to ease congestion along the route between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, but the project has also evolved into a “multipurpose corridor”. This multi-level plan includes toll roads, bicycle lanes and green energy initiatives such as charging stations for electric vehicles.