HomeMy Public PortalAbout12 December 2, 1987 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
2:00 P.M., DECEMBER 2, 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
14TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
4080 LEMON STREET, RIVERSIDE 92501
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of November 4, 1987 Minutes.
3. Public Comments.
� ConsE'nt. q511!LI _ . r
All matters on the consent calendar will be approved in a
single motion unless a Commission member requests separate
action on a specific i t em. )
Sun_Li _ne Transit Agency Short_ Range Transit Plan
Amendment - Lines 20 and 5 Service Change.
This item was considered last month and continued,
pending a public hearing by the Sun Line Hoard.
�3. Fiscal Audit - Local Transportation Fund.
Receive and file.
DownscLope of SB 821 Project City of Hemet.
This would modify the City of Hemet's approved bike
path program as proposed by Hemet and/or acceptable to
the' City Engineer.
Set Unmet. Transit, Need Hearings.
Hearings are proposed in Palm Desert in February, and
Riverside and Corona in March.
Proposal to Expand Citizens Advisory Committee for SB 498
Implementation. �-
Expansion would incorporate required representatives of
handicapped and social service agencies/providers to review
unmet transit needs testimony and make recommendations.
6. Proposed Consultant Services to Review Highway Project Costs.
The existing agreement with D.J. Smith and Associates is
recommended to be increased by $15,000 to include additonal
work and a subcontract with Bechtel Civil, Inc.
7. Renewal of Lease - Proposal to Move to Suite 300.
The opportunity exists to move to the Suite nexi to JCTC's
current office for a modest increase in cost.
8. Review of SCAQMD's Proposed Regulation XV.
Approximately 350 Riverside County employers would be
affected. The proposal and recommendations of other
agencies will be discussed.
9. Southern California Association of Governments Related Items
Update on Transportation Development Act Administration
Transition.
B. 1988-89 SCAG Overall Work Program Overview and Work
Proposed for Riverside County.
Overview of Legislative Tssues.
SCAG and RCTC staff will verbally present information on
these .items at the meeting.
10. Adjournment.
The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for January
6, 1988 at 2:00 p.m.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 15-87
November 4, 1987
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at
2:03 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4, 1987, at, the 14th Floor
Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative
Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Susan Cornelison
Melba Dunlap
Jean Mansfield
Alternates present:
I)on Rasket.t
Russell Beirich
Dick I)eininger
2 Approval of Minutes.
Roy Wilson
Norton Younglove
Pat Murphy
Wayne Stuart
Ray Tanner
M/S/C (CORNELISON/STl)ART) to approve the minutes of the
October 7, 1987 meeting as submitted.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Consent Calendar.
M/S/C (CORNELISON/TANNER) to:
A. Fiscal Audits - STA Account., SAFE Account and ROTC
Account . --- -- -- - -- -- - - ---
Receive and file the fiscal audits of the
Commission's accounts, the State Transit
Assistance Program account., and the Service
Authority for Freeway Emergencies account.
B. Quarterly Financial Report.
Receive and file the quarterly financial report of
the Riverside County Transportation Commission
Fund.
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
5. Rideshare Efforts in Riverside County.
Kathy Gerwig, Commuter Computer, briefed the Commission on
the following areas: 1) what. Commuter Computer is doing in
placing people in the ridesharing program; 2) efforts being
made with OCTD to service the Riverside to Orange County
commuters; and, 3) Commuter Computer's role is to make Route
91 a more effective corridor. In terms of placement
effectiveness, a survey was conducted by Commuter Computer
between July and September, 1987. A detailed report and
analysis of the survey will he presented to the Commission
in 90 days.
Kathy Gerwig continued and informed the Commission of
proposal by the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Regulation 15, which would require employers of 10(1 or more
employees to develop and implement a plan on ridesharing.
They are supportive of the intent. of Regulation 15 and
through Commuter Computer's public policy committee will be
giving testimony at the public hearing before the District
for the December ll. At the State level, the Governor
repealed all existing rideshare tax credits retroactive to
January 1, 1987. They are currently working with different
organizations in the area to try and pursue legislation for
1988. At the federal level, bills have been introduced to
offer tax incentives and tax exemptions for employers
providing vanpooling vehicles and to provide an exemption
for subsidizing ridesharing fees such as through transit
passes.
Commissioner Mansfield commented that there are some people
that commute to Orange County that are now ready to listen
to ridesharing ideas. She asked if Commuter Computer have
agressively marketed buspooling whereby commuters could
leave their cars in a parking lot and buspool to Orange
County.
Kathy Gerwig said that Commuter Computer is working with the
Orange County Transit District in this area.
Steve Rathburn, Emergency Services Department, County of
Riverside, informed the Commission that 61% of County
employees participated in the RideShare Days exercise in
August which resulted in 51% reduction of downtown vehicles.
Also, 26% of City employees participated on a volunteer
basis. For the Rideshare Days, the Commission has provided
$500 to the County for incentives with a condition that the
funds also be utilized for continuation of rideshare process
throughout the year. He will meet with Higbee Hayslett to
determine how to most effectively use the remaining $$367 to
continue the rideshare process.
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
Commissioner Younglove commented that a private sector,
Security Pacific National Bank, had the best participation
during the Rideshare Days.
Steve Rathburn added that Security Pacific National Bank was
very cooperative from the inception of the program and, in
fact, provided the Rideshare Days flyers that were included
in County employees' paychecks.
Commissioner Cornelison asked the process for matching
employees interested in ridesharing.
Steve Rathburn said that the mat chl ist was prepared in
cooperation with Carla Newell of Commuter Computer, Ed
Studor of the Road Department, Higbee Hayslett of the
Administrative Office, and himself, and were provided to
employees requesting it..
Commissioner Beirich asked that next year if funding toward,
ridesharing was to be ii,creased to $5,000 if it would
increase participation ten times in direct correlation to
prizes and the number of employees participating.
Steve Rathburn said that there were approximately the same
number of prizes given out this year but the big difference
was the grand prize (2 round trip tickets to anywhere in the
United States donated by American Airlines). He added that
about. 11-13% employees who participated has indicated a
desire to continue to rideshare.
Commissioner Younglove said that the existence of prizes is
very important to get the attention of employees to
part icipate but once that is achieved, he does not think
that adding more prizes would make that much difference.
6. RIVSAN Study Status Report and Initial Findings.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, said that the RIVSAN
Transportation Study, a study projecting traffic volumes for
the year 2010 and which identify the deficiencies in the
highway and major arterial system for Western Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties, will be completed within the next
2-3 months. SCAG will be distributing a draft reportto the
cities and the County for review and comment. A final
report will be presented to the Commission for approval
after review and comment by local agencies.
Gil Hicks, Project. Manager, SCAG, said that SCAG used in
forecasting traffic a computerized travel demand model which
takes in information relating to employment, population and
housing. The primary driving force of this effort are the
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
assumptions on population/employment growth of the area.
Using a chart, he showed the levels of growth and
population, and the trips made from 1984 to 2010 by major
areas. The traffic that the population growth will generate
has been ploted using a no -case scenario and with proposed
improvements scenario. They will also evaluate the impacts
of extending the proposed Cajalco Parkway as well as the
possibility of other corridors, and the feasibility of
commuter rail service along the Santa Fe line along Route
91.
Commissioner Cornelison asked if both models used do not, of
this point, include any change in the job/housing balance.
Also, she asked if consideration was made of Orange County
land use options in developing the alternatives.
Git Hicks said that for San Bernardino County, they used
the '82 SCAG Modified Forecast which assumes some balance
but in Riverside County, they felt. that SCAB '82 Modified
Forecast was just not going to happen. So they increased
the population level in Riverside County and kept the
employment level the same. So, there is some worsening
jobs/housing balance in the Riverside County section of the
study. With regards to land options in Orange County, Gil
Hicks said that there were no variations of Orange County
assumptions plugged in.
Commissioner Cornelison asked with the proposed Cajalco
Parkway, how much was taken into consideration of the
internal use.
Gil Hicks stated that he does not have any numbers for the
Commission on this today.
Jack Reagan, Executive Director, cautioned the Commissioners
from drawing any conclusion from the initial model run
because the purpose of the Cajalco Parkway study is to play
a lot of "what if" games in terms of other connections and
that the numbers may look a lot different.
Commissioner Beirich asked whether this information is
significantly different from what was discussed about before
in developing the expenditure plan for the proposed sales
tax measure.
Jack Reagan said that he is unsure whether this information
was used as the basis for putting together the expenditure
plan but this ought to be looked at in relationship to
priorities and projects.
_ RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
Commissioner Beirich said that the '84 SCAG Modified
Forecast indicated that there were 300,000 people and
100,0004 jobs. The forecast for 2010 are 600,000 people but
only about 235,000 jobs. He asked what the reason is for
the employment growth. He also noted that with more people
coming into jobs, there would be more traffic internally.
Gil Hicks said that there is some improvement in the balance
but it is not as much. In reflecting the differences in the
household size, some of the people in the retirement,
community would not be making as many trips and this is
factored into the model. In Riverside County, there is a
high level of retirement activity.
7 Local Sales Tax for Transportation - Riverside County Board
of Supervisors Request to Defer to November 1988.
Jac Reagan said that included in the agenda pocket is a
letter received from Supervisor Walt Abraham, Chairman of
the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, requesting that
RCTC defer placing the local sales tax measure until the
November 1988 election. Staff felt that the decision be
deferred until its February ]988 meeting as there are some
additional information that needs to be considered before
the decision is made such as: 1) result of a survey of how
voters will respond; and, 2) what other issues will be on
the June and November 1988 elections.
With regards to the results of the San Bernardino County's
local sales tax measure, Jack Reagan said that given the
voter turnout which is a little less than 20% and the
composition of the voters, 45% voting for the measure is not
bad.
M/S/C (WILSON/MANSFIELD) to receive and file the
request from the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
to defer the local sales tax for transportation measure
to November 1988 and consider the request when the
final decision is made by the Commission in February.
8. Federal Aid Urban Program Amendments.
A. Route 111 Widening (Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage).
Jack Reagan informed the Commission that the Cities of
Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage have requested amendments
to the FAU Program to reduce the local share and
increase the federal share of funds for widening
Highway 111 from 4 to fi lanes between Bob Hope Drive
and Town Center Way. The proposed amendment was
reviewed by the FAU and the Technical Advisory
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
Committees and they proposed that: 1) the cities of
Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage should be allowed to use
their FY 1986-87 unobligated balances and FY ]987-88
allocations toward the project; 2) the Frank Sinatra
Drive project in Rancho Mirage should be deleted from
the program as requested, with funding transferred to
the Highway 11] project; and, 3) that Caltrans
contributions of the project costs should not be
increased.
Brenda Scarce]la, Planning Associate, City of Indian
Wells, informed the Commission of Indian Wells concern
on the proposed project to widen Highway 111 to 6 lanes
between Bob Hope Drive and Town Center Way. She said
that if the Commission approved the project, it wi l l
eventually affect Indian Wells in the future. She then
submitted a letter from Indian Wells to the Commission.
Dick Folkers, Public Works Director and City Engineer•,
City of Palm Desert., said that Palm Desert feels very
strongly about the project because there is a definite:
need for the st.reet widening project through the area.
A study done during the Bob Hope Classics last year
indicated that within a 24--hour period, there were
approximately 55,000 cars which travelled the 4-lane
road. The project is to widen between Bob Hope Drive
and Town Center Way. The project has been reviewed by
Caltrans and the two cities. He requested Commission
approval of the staff recommendation.
M/S/C (BASKETT/MANSFIELD) to approve the
amendments to the Federal Aid Urban Program as
proposed by the FAU and Technical Advisory
Committees and direct staff to make necessary
revisions to the Transportation Improvement
Program.
B. Local Funding for Route 9] Preliminary Engineering.
Jack Reagan said that with the Commission's project
priorities on I-15, I-215, and Route 86, there is
little likelihood that a project could be funded on
Route 9] for 12 years or more unless the 1/2% sales tax
measure is approved by the voters. Given this
situation, the most reasonable course of action is to
get a Route 91 project "on the shelf" in anticipation
of voter approval of the sales tax measure. The most
expeditious way of moving a project on Route 91 would
be to commit local funding for engineering and the most,
likely source of identifiable funds would be the FAU
funds. This would get the project into the ST]P as a
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
special funded project. Staff is proposing that tilt'
Commission dedicate FAU funds to initiate preliminary
engineering for a Route 91 project.
M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) to approve the inclusion of
a preliminary engineering project. on Route 9] on
the FY 88--89 FAU Program.
9. Proposed CTC Policy for Funding Airport and Port. Access
Projects.
Eric Haley, SCAG, said that the proposed policy would
require fair share local match funds to be provided by
either private or public sources for any significant ac-c esf.
improvements to airports and ports throughout California.
The reason for the proposed policy is the limit in fund!.;,
expertation of declining federal funds, and the "deep
pockets" of both ports and airports. He said that ports and
airports in California has serious problems in terms of
meeting capital improvement needs for on -site and off- s-i i e
projects. SCAG feels that the fair share concept should be
developed further, and should be developed with in
cooperation of representatives from local governments, the
etc, ports and airports communities. The languages in the
proposed resolution exempts entities which have economic
impact on California. Smaller cities are not properly
exempted because they do not generate enough airport traffic
to have a meaningful connection. SCAG would like to secs
that the policy be seriously considered and that loopholes
be tightened to address funding sources that look at the
institutional problems, look at the actual traffic problems,
establish some thresholds, and tighten the policy. SCAG
staff will be proposing to the Executive Committee that they
support the fair share project funding in concept for port
and airport access improvements and to authorize staff to
work with the CTC to resolve specific policy concerns.
M/S/C (WILSON/STUART) to oppose the California
Transportation Commission's proposed policy for funding
airport and port access projects unless amended in
accordance to SCAG recommendations.
10. Legislative Items.
Jack Reagan briefed the Commission on the following
legislative items:
SH 516 IBerg_eson) - This bill would provide legislative
authority for Caltrans to contract out engineering work.
Included in the agenda is a report from Commissioner Bruce
Nestande explaning the need for SB 516. Staff recommends
ROTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
that the Commission support SB 516.
SB 366 (Baker) - This bill was passed last September. It
establishes a $50 million State Highway Construction
Revolving Account in which local agencies funding highway
construction projects may borrow funds for up to two years.
Staff is proposing that the Commission direct staff to seek
amendment to identify engineering projects, such as
preliminary engineering project on Route 91, as an eligible
project for such loans. The amendment would lessen the
impact on more immediate FAU funded local road projects.
M/S/C (DU]NLAP/WILSON) to support SB 516 and to direct
staff to initiate action to amend SB 366 and identify
engineering projects as eligible projects for such
loans.
i]. Request. Authorization to Recruit for Staff Positions.
Jack Reagan informed the Commission that the Staff Analyst
position is needed to fulfill existing and new
responsibilities such as TDA administration, and the Service
Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) program, Also
being proposed is the addition of a part-time Clerk Typist
to assist in the increasing office work load. He noted that
the salary for the Clerk Typist position is $7.00-
$9.00/hour. The proposal for additional staffing was
previously reviewed with the Personnel Committee.
M/S/C (CORNEL1SON/TANNER) to approve the addition of a
Staff Analyst and a Clerk Typist and authorize staff to
initiate recruitment..
12. Executive Director's Report.
A. Request to Consider Consultant Assistance for Review of
Expenditure Plan.
Included in the agenda is a letter from D.J. Smith
recommending that the Commission retain a consultant to
review Caltrans' estimates of project costs and revenue
estimates shown in the preliminary expenditure plan.
He expressed the importance of having a fairly accurate
estimate of project costs, and State and Federal
revenues. He said that it is essential to determine
the final expenditure plan as soon as possible. In
San Bernardino County, SanBAG retained Arthur Young and
Associates, and Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and
Douglas. Arthur Young has submitted a proposal which
would cost $34,000 ($10,500 for initial engineering and
analysis and $23,500 for review of the revenue
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
forecast). He feels comfortable with the initial
engineering and analysis cost but not with the cost to
review the revenue forecast especially since Arthur
Young will rely on staff to provide the estimates.
There is a need to determine a high and low range in
the financial estimates. He feels that this could
probably he done in-house or perhaps to amend D.J.
Smith's contract to assist staff.
Commissioner Beirich suggested that perhaps the
Commission should seek request for proposals from other
consulting firms to get a feel of how much it would
cost to do the job.
Jack Reagan noted the time constraints and said that to
expedite things he suggested augmenting D.J. Smith's
contract and work with him on revenue forecasting and
perhaps have PBD&Q as a suhcontr:actor for D.J. Smith.
M/S/C (WILSON/STUART) to el,thorize° the Fxecutive
Director to solidify a proT-osal and bring it back
to the Commission at its next meeting in December.
B. Route 91 Ramp Metering.
Jack Reagan said that Caltrans }vas decided to c1 fer the
ramp metering projects in Corona. For future ramp
metering projects, he suggested that the Commission
should develop a ramp meter policy on Route 91 rather
than looking at ramp meter projects on an individual
basis.
Commissioner Younglove said t.hat the ramp metering
policy should be that the Commission support ramp
metering when a traffic congestion level (D,F,or F) is
reached unless local conditions dictate otherwise.
He suggested that staff should make a detailed analysis
on ramp metering and arrive at a policy to bring back
to the Commission.
Commissioner Deininger informed the Commission that. the
City of Corona did not object to the whole ramp
metering program proposed on Route 91. The City
Council objected to metering the Maple Street ramp
because it would cause traffic to back up all the way
to Sixth Street. He suggested that Caltrans should
also look at a ramp meter project on the Route 71 ramp.
Stan Lisiewicz, Deputy Director of District 8, said
that Corona has raised some objections and CaJirans
will address them. They will also look at the
RCTC Minutes
November 7, 1987
suggestion to meter Route 71 ramp.
Jack Reagan said that he had hoped that Caltrans will
have a technical analysis related to ramp metering on
Route 91. He would then like to review the information
with representative of affected cities such as Corona,
Norco, Riverside, and County of Riverside.
Stan 1isiewicz stated that the problem is that the
proposed ramp metering project is under the $250,000
limit in order to avoid going through the State
Transportation Improvement Program process where other
funds could be used. But when the scope of the project
is changed and only a part of the project is
constructed, the project may not accomplish whnt it set
out to do.
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff come
hack with a policy on ramp metering.
C. Liaison with SLAG.
Jack Reagan informed the Commission of a need to have
an identified SCAG liaison at Commission meetings and
to work with local governments in Riverside County on
matters that relate to SCAG.
M/S/C (W1LSONiDUNLAP) to authorize the Executive
Director to write a letter to Mark Pisan°,
Executive Director of SCAG, to consider
designating a SCAG staff as the SCAG liaison.
D. California Transportation Commission Meeting in Palm
Jack Reagan said that a tour of Route 86 is planned for
the State Commission in November 18 at 2:30 p.m. and a
reception, co -hosted by CVAG, Southern California
Automible Club, Route 86 Coalition and the Commission,
is scheduled at 6:00 p.m.
At this time, Chairman Dunlap informed the Commission that
Pat Murphy was elected as Vice Chairman of the California
League of Cities. Jean Mansfield was reelected for the
third term.
13. Proposed SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan
Amendment.
Jack Reagan said that he and Paul Blackwelder met with Lee
Norwine and Dick Cromwell to review the information to
10
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
justify the recommended service change, and staff recommends
Commission approval. A public hearing on the recommended
service change is scheduled on December 19. Staff
recommends that SunLine staff make special efforts to inform
Line 20 patrons of the best possible transfers between Lines
20 and 19. Also, SunLine should closely monitor the Line 19
service and capacity.
Lee Norwine, General Manager, SunLine Transit Agency, said
that the SunLine Transit Agency has one major route, Line
19, that travels from Desert Hot Springs all the way through
the valley. Throughout the year, Line 19 has increased in
ridership. One the problems encountered is that there are
currently eight buses being used for the route and, each
year, there is less time to do the same route because of
traffic conditions. They are proposing the following: 1'.
eliminate Line 20 service between Palm Desert, and Indio
which duplicates Line 19 service; 2) eliminate Line 20
service in the northern portion of Indio; 2) increase
frequency of Line 20 service from 60 minutes to 40 minutes
between Palm Springs and Palm Desert; and, 4) service the
northern portion of Indio by extending Line 5.
Jack Reagan said that SunLine will still need to hold a
public hearing to fulfill the Commission requirement for
service changes. SunLine has indicated that they would like
to implement the change on November 22nd. In order to do
this, staff is proposing that the Commission approve the
service changes, in concept, and direct staff to testify at
the public hearing its concern that SunLine make special
efforts to inform Line 20 riders of the best possible
transfer times between Lines 20 and 19, and t he need to
closely monitor the Line 19 service ridership and capacity.
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/WILSON) to approve the service change,
in concept, and direct staff to appear at the SunLine
public hearing and submit. the Commission's concern
relating to transfers.
14. Adjournment..
At 4:07 P.M., with no other items before the Commission,
Chairman Dunlap adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
•
Jack Reagan
Executive Director
nk
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant. Director
SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan
Amendment - Lines 20 and 5 Service Changes
At the November Commission meeting, proposed changes to SunLine
Transit. Agency services on Line 20 (Palm Springs -Indio) and Line
5 (Indio -Coachella) were given tentative approval to be
implemented on November 22, 1987 so long as no significant
problems were identified at the required public hearing. The
Commission directed staff to propose that. SunLine make special
efforts to inform Line 20 riders of the best possible transfers
between Lines 20 and 19. Attached is the staff report from the
November meeting and a follow-up letter to SunLine. Staff
attended the public hearing held by SunLine on November 19th.
No significant problems were identified at the public hearing on
the proposed Line 20 and 5 changes. The changes were implemented
on November 22nd. SunLine provided assistance to riders
transferring between Lines 20 and 19 at the Palm Desert Town
Center by stationing an employee at the transfer point to answer
questions and provide assistance to identify the best transfer
times for future reference of the riders.
Formal approval of the service change is required due to the
magnitude of the change and the adopted Commission procedures for
services changes.
RECOMMENDATION
That. the Commission approve the amendment of the Riverside County
Short Range Transit Plan to incorporate the changes on Lines 20
and 5 as proposed by the SunLine Transit Agency.
PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 4A
RCTC December 2, 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
4075 Main Siree:. Sulle 302 • Ri,.erside, California 92501 • (714) 76'-114]
hcveaher 9, 1987
Mayor Richard Kelly, Chsiraan
SunLine Transit Agency
32-505 Harry Oliver Trail
Thousand Paws, California 92276
SUBJECT: Route 20 Changes
Dear Chairman Kelly:
At its aeetirg on Novew`)er 4, 1987, the proposed changes for line
20 tentatively effective November 22, 1987 were presented to the
Riverside County Transportation Commission. The Comaission is in
agreement with the changes. However, the Comaission did not give
final approval or ar.end the Short Range Transit Plan :SnTF et
this tine because the public hearing requirement for the change
had not beer, met. Unless there is a significant problem
identified with the proposed change at the public hearing, the
Commission will take action to amend the SETT to incorporate the
Line 20 changes et their meeting on December 2, 1967. Also, if
there ere no significant problems identified at the public
hearing, SunLine may proceed with implementing the proposed
charges on November 22nd.
The C..auission directed staff to attend the public hearing to
voice the Connission's proposal that SunLine make special efforts
to inform line 20 riders of the best possible transfer times
between Lines 20 and 19, and the need for SunLine to closely
monitor Line 19 ridership and capacity to be able to identify and
address capacity problems on Line 19 in the event such problems
arise.
1 appreciate the time Lee Norwine and Dick Cromwell took to
review the change with Paul Blackwelder and me. The charge
appears to be well conceived.
Very truly yours,
ACE REAGAN
xecutive Direct
3R/PB:nk
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
November 4, 1987
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: SunLine Short Range Transit Plan Amendment - Line 20
and Line 5 Revisions
SunLine Transit Agency is proposing a major service change on the
intercity Line 20 (Palm Springs to Indio). Line 20 service
currently operates on a 60-minute headway. Line 19 (Desert Hot
Springs -Indio) provides service on a 30-minute headway. Lines 19
and 20 provide duplicative service between Palm Desert and Indio.
Line 20 also serves the northern portion of the City of Indio.
The SunLine proposal would do the following:
o Eliminate Line 20 service between Palm Desert and Indio
which duplicates Line 19 service.
o Eliminate Line 20 service in the northern portion of Indio.
o Increase the frequency of Line 20 service from 60 minutes to
40 minutes between Palm Springs and Palm Desert.
o Serve the northern portion of Indio by extending Line 5
(local Indio -Coachella service).
ADVANTAGES:
o The north Indio area would be served on a 30-minute headway
rather than a 60-minute headway by using Line 5 to serve the
area.
o The Palm Springs -Palm Desert portion of Line 20 would he
served more frequently, every 40 minutes rather than every
hour.
o Improved frequencies on Lines 5 and 20 are expected to
increase ridership on both lines.
DISADVANTAGES
o Riders currently using Line 20 that must travel through the
Palm Desert Town Center to complete their trip will have to
transfer to Line 19.
a Riders in the northern portion of Indio using Line 20 to
travel west of Indio will have to transfer from Line 5 to
Line 19.
SunLine staff has provided information showing that the Line 19
service between Pala Desert and Indio has adequate capacity to
accommodate passengers expected to transfer from Lines 5 and 20.
Line 5 transfers will be coordinated very closely with Line 19 in
Indio. Line 20 to Line 19 transfer times in Palm Desert vary
from 2 minutes to 27 minutes. SunLine has assumed that by
improving the level of service on Line:,-20 and by a concerted
marketing effort, the passengers using Line 20 requiring a
transfer to Line 19 will adjust their travel to use the Line 20
runs with a 2-minute transfer time to Line 19.
The SunLine Board of Directors reviewed this service change at
their meeting on October 28th. SunLine has expressed a desire to
implement this service change on Sunday, November 22nd to start
the tourist season service levels. A public hearing will be held
prior to the service change.
Staff has reviewed the SunLine information and agrees that, based
on the data provided by SunLine, the Line 19 service has adequate
capacity to serve the Palm Desert to Indio ridership currently on
Lines 19 and 20. Staff further agrees that the improved service
levels proposed on Line 20 between Palm Springs and Palm Desert,
and service to the northern Indio area using Line 5 should
increase ridership.
Staff recommends that SunLine proceed with the service changes on
November 22nd unless major problems are identified at the public
hearing on the service changes and thEt a formal Short Range
Transit Plan amendment for these service changes be presented to
the Commission et the December 2nd meeting. It is also
recommended that staff attend the public hearing to present as
testimony the need for SunLine to inform patrons on Line 20 of
the best possible.transfer times between Line 20 and Line 19 to
help to smooth the transition and for SunLine to monitor
ridership on Line 19 to identify and address capacity problems
that may arise in the future as ridership grows.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Schedule action on a formal Short Range Transit Plan
amendment for SunLine's Line 20 changes at the Commission's
December 2nd meeting with tentative approval of the service
change being effective on November 22nd unless major
problems are identified at the public hearing regarding the
service change.
2. Direct staff to attend the public hearing to voice the
Commission's proposal that SunLine make special efforts to
inform Line 20 riders of the best possible transfer times
between Lines 20 and 19, and the need to closely monitor the
Line 19 service ridership and capacity.
PB:nk
TO:
FROM:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Fiscal Audit - Local Transportation Fund
The fiscal audit of the Local Transportation Fund for FY 1986-87
has been completed by Thomas, Byrne and Smith. A copy of the
audit is included in the agenda packet. The auditors found that
all funds have been expended in accordance with the applicable
rules and regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the audit of the Local Transportation Fund.
PB:nk
Agenda Item No. 4B
RCTC December 2, 1987
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT
Year Ended June 30, 1987
THOMAS. BYRNE & SMITH
AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT
Year Ended June 30, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. Auditor's Report
. Financial Statements
Page Number
Exhibit 1 - Balance Sheet 1
Exhibit 2 - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balances
Notes to Financial Statements
ICI. Supplemental Information
Schedule 1 - Schedule of Allocations and Payments 4
Schedule 2 - Schedule of Unallocated Apportionments 5
Schedule 3 - Schedule of Changes in Reserve Balances 6
2
3
THOMAS, BYRNE & SMITH
AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Do ald L. Thomas, C.P.A. July 31, 1987
D ichard Byrne. C.P.A. 4362 Orange Street
V- . Smith, Jr., C.P.A. Riverside. California 92501
Ail C. Harrison, C.P.A. (714) 682-4851
Board of Supervisors
County of Riverside
Riverside, California
We have examined the financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund of
the County of Riverside, California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 1987,
as listed in the table of contents. Our examination was made in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests
of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.
The financial statements present only the Local Transportation Fund and are not
intended to present fairly the financial position and results of operations of
the County of Riverside in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly the
financial position of the Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside,
California, at June 30, 1987 and the results of that Fund's operations for the
year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles
applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year.
Our examination was made for purposes of forming an opinion on the financial
statements taken as a whole. The accompanying supplemental information, as
listed in the table of contents, is presented for purposes of additional analysis
and is not a required part of the financial statements of the Local Transportation
Fund of the County of Riverside, California. Such information has been subjected
to the auditing procedures applied in the examination of the financial statements
and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the
financial statements taken as a whole.
THOMAS, BYRNE & SMITH
An Accountancy C poration
By: D. Richard Byrne
1
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BALANCE SHEET
June 30, 1987
EXHIBIT 1
ASSETS
ash in County Treasury $2,399,841
Total Assets $2.399,841
LIABILITIES AND FUN➢ BALANCES
iabilities
Due to Other Governmental Agencies $ 2,509
and Balances
Unallocated Apportionments (Schedule 2) 233,027
Reserved Balances (Schedule 3) - 0 -
Unapportioned Balance 2,164,305
Total Fund Balances 2,3972332
Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $2,399,841
he accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
- 1 -
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
Year Ended June 30, 1987
EXHIBIT 2
Fund Balances, Beginning of Year $ 2,886,145
venues
State Local Transportation fund
Interest Income
Total Revenues
Total
$15,955,752
217,648
16,173,400
19,059,545
Expenditures (Schedule 1) Allocations Payments
Article 4 Expenditures $ 8,982,837 $ 8,982,837
Article 8 Expenditures 7,213,158 7,213,158
SB 821 Article 3 Expenditures 216,224 216,224
Planning, Programming and Administration 249,994 249,994
Total Expenditures $16.662�213 16,662,213
Fund Balances, End of Year
$ 2,397,332
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
- 2 -
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Year Ended June 30, 1987
1) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
The Local Transportation Fund was created under the Transportation Development
Act of 1971. The Fund, administered by the County of Riverside, has monies
apportioned by the State to the county -wide area, with allocations made to
claimants upon the approval of their claims by the Southern California Association
of Governments. The purpose of the Program is to allocate funds for public
transportation needs, local streets and roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities
and multimodal transportation terminals. The following are the Program's
significant accounting policies:
A) Pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 6661, the modified
cash basis is followed by the Riverside County Local Transportation
Fund in that revenues are recorded as received and expenditures are
recorded when allocated.
B) Investments are stated at cost.
Depository
Local Transportation Fund monies are on deposit with the Riverside County Treasurer.
Monies not specifically invested are pooled with other county monies with interest
being allocated on the basis of daily cash balances on deposit with the Treasury.
$35,450 of interest was allocated to the Fund in July, 1987.
Due to Other Governmental Agencies - $2,509
This amount represents funds allocated but unpaid at June 30, 1987. This amount
was paid in July, 1987 as follows:
City of Indian Wells 2.509
- 3 -
i12'6141f tie 299'41S 66h'bla Er662-1 0 - $ 622'gut VgrttZra 851 E12'L { a. 206'8$ 1E8F286'8 i
S0'919'2 50'969'2 50 969'2 SCE '909'Z F0ua6V llsue44 aulluns
121'09 121'259 121'299 12I'LS9 01835
660'68 660'68 660'68 /60'/8 MOS
OIL'L6 012'26 OIL'L6 OlCL6 olupep ue5 40 F113
66'896'6 60'80'6 000'8L 000'8L 66'08E'/ 66'08E', Foua6V llsue.aa aplsaaal8
009'691 009'6S1 009'6S1 009'651 3138
/I6'SWE /I1'92E'£ 009'011 00S'011 616'612'E 1,16'/12'E luarpoda0 pm' - apls4a41.8 10 puno3
00E'9 00E'9 00E'9 00E'9 Jollpn6 - apls4a48 Lo Fluno3
Oa'Ea'I 92I'E62'I 921'80 921'80 000'519 000'519 aplsuaµ8 to 4113
988'/S 988'69 986'8E 98/'14 00►'91 000'91 a694114 0411114 to 413
I6E'/11 16E'611 E6E'611 16E'/11 5144aa to Am
002'62 002'62 002'62 002'62 Foua6V llsue44 Fallan aplan pled
96L'S6I 96L'S61 96L'961 962'961 s6uµds clad 0 413
65I'9L 151'9L 156'9L 1,5/'9L 140s00 rled 40 413
SSWEOE SSO`ECIE SSO'EOE SSO'COE osaoV to 4113
60'09 260'09 692'6L 69L'62 EEE'2l9 EEE'219 Fallon 0uaa08 0 410
605'862 605'862 60L'1S 60C IS 008'912 008'962 aloulsl3 alel 40 Alp
995'6E 995'6E 999'6C 999'6E tluln0 el 0 1113
EE9'E61 CE9'1/1 EE9'161 U9'161 01001 to 430
200'01 260'01 260'01 210'01 5104 411P01 0 Fll3
E88'SS2 C88'552 096'91 096'/1 E26'062 C26'062 14r011 10 Fll3
866'/S 866'15 000'91 000'91 866'8E 866'8E s6uluds 1148 14asa0 /o Flo
621'028 621'028 628'9IL 60'912 006'E01 006'E01 euo403 10 F143
896'29 896'29 896'29 896'29 011494/03 10 F113
O85'oe 089'08 089'08 089'08 413 041,44113 l0 4113
022'E61 OL2'E/I OU'EOI 012'E►1 441F18 40 Fll3
686'822 086'822 torte /BY 68 O02'1►1 002'►II luornea8 10 Fl N
85E'9EC S 85E'9CE $ $ S $ S $ S 960'E61 $ 960'E61 $ 2921/1 $ 292'EtI $ Wpm's 10 410
sluamFed suo14e30111 slI od s0011100118 11u44l9d 4001114014V slu ed 4001112011V SluanW'aa suo11ao0L18 sluff 60l1eo01LV
slelol aelle44simlrpV put $044asae C a1111-111 10 OS 0 013414V / alo q4V
6uprwaboad '6010001d
061 'OE 4000 PaPu3 444A
8031135 S1N3WAVd 041 5101n3011v n0 31110305
301S83AI8 d0 A1N003 341 AO 03814514140V
01103 401'' "964181 11601
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SCHEDULE Off' UNALLOCATED APPORTIONMENTS SCHEDULE 2
June 30, 1987
achella Valley Area $154,777
P-lo Verde Valley Area 2,700
estern County Area 75,550
Total
$233,027
- 5 -
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN RESERVE BALANCES
Year Ended June 30, 1987
SCHEDULE 3
Beginning
of Year Allocations Payments End of Year
SB 821 Article 3 Reserves $ 121,608 $ 328,400 $450� 008 $ - 0 -
Total $ 121.608 $ 328.400 $450.008 $ - 0 -
6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Downscoping of SB 821 Project - City of Hemet
The City of Hemet has requested permission to downscope a bicycle
project approved in FY 1986-87. A copy of the letter and project
map is attached. The original project called for Class II bike
lanes on both side of Palm Avenue, Thornton Avenue, and State
Street as an extension to the existing bike paths along Stetson
Avenue and Palm Avenue. The changes requested are as follows:
a) construct a Class II bike path only along the easterly side of
Palm Avenue for travel north between Thornton and Stetson
Avenues; and, b) construct a Class II bike path only along the
westerly side of State Street for travel south between Stetson
and Thornton Avenues.
The City of Hemet has approved a development along the westerly
side of Palm Avenue. The City has required the developer to
widen Palm Avenue and paint the bike lane strip as a condition to
approval of the development. Construction will be completed
within 6 months. Staff agrees that the request to delete this
portion from the project to be funded by SB 821 and City funds
should be approved since it will be constructed by the developer
as part of street widening improvements required for approval of
construction.
Staff recommends against the request to approve striping a Class
II bike lane on only one side of State Street. This change would
provide a path for southerly travel but not for northerly travel.
The City plans to extend the Thornton Avenue bike paths easterly
to Buena Vista Avenue and along Buena Vista northerly to Stetson
Avenue. The Buena Vista bike path would provide for travel north
and south between Stetson and Thornton Avenues, and is only 1/4
mile easterly of State Street. The Buena Vista extension is a
more logical extension because it provides for travel in two
directions. The City will be requesting SB 821 funding for the
Thornton -Buena Vista extension next year. Staff has discussed
the recommendation with John Greer, City Engineer for the City of
Hemet, and he has no objection.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. To approve the request from the City of Hemet to construct
the bike path only along the easterly side of Palm Avenue
with SB 821 funding with the stipulation that the bike path
on the westerly side of Palm Avenue be constructed by the
developer or the City within 6 months.
2. To disapprove the request to construct a bike path only
along the westerly side of State Street and delete the State
Street bike path from the approved project.
PB:nk
Agenda Item No. 4C
RCTC December 2, 1987
From the
Office of
PUBLIC WORKS
450 EAST LATHAM AVENUE • i-rEMET, CALIFORNIA 92343 •(714) -658-9441
November 20, 1987
Jack Reagan, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4075 Main Street, Suite 302
Riverside, California 92501
Attention: Mr. Paul Blackwelder
Subject: 1986-87 Bicycle Lane Extension
Dear Mr. Blackwelder:
RECEIVED
NOV 23 1987
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
Per yesterday's conference call between Pam Easter, you and
myself, I have enclosed a copy of a vicinity map indicating our
proposal. The City of Hemet is proposing to install bikeways
on Devonshire (between Kirby and Sanderson), Acacia (between
Palm and Lyon) and State, Thornton and Palm Streets as per the
project information form submitted to you on August 19, 1986.
We are proposing to install one -directional bikeways on State
and Palm as follows:
State Street
The street has already been constructed too narrow to install
two bikeways OA ' curb -to -curb). Due to excessive costs of
removing and replacing curb and gutter and the inherent
difficulties of realignment of the sidewalks, drainage and
driveways, the City of Hemet proposes to install a one-way
bikeway (south bound on the west side of State from Stetson to
Thornton). This will entail removing and repainting of traffic
stripes only.
Palm Avenue
Palm Avenue is an existing half width street. The west half
has not been constructed but will be constructed by a developer
within the next six months. Therefore the City of Hemet pro-
poses to install a one-way bikeway (north bound on east side of
Palm from Thornton to Stetson). This will entail striping and
minor addition of pavement.
Riverside County November 20, 1987
Transportation Commission page 2
The City will receive bids for this project on December 1 and
approve the low bidder during the City Council's December 8,
1987, meeting. The City's consultant will have plans available
on Monday, November 23, if required.
Please let me know as soon as possible if the above proposal
meets with your approval.
City Engineer
JLG:bjb
L/Ify df ,z/etn&, z1
...'S
J
DEVONSHIRE
FLORIDA
w
a
ACACIA
FR\t`�
MAYBERRY
AVE.
AVE.
AVE.
cn
r
AVE.
WHITTIER 2
u
JOHNSTON
a
n_
AVE.
AVE
STETSON AVE.
m 11-11-•.rr-rrrrf�f«�.-r� �rrr.�.w..... -...�.
Legend
.�MIMIC)
• • • • • • • •
2 -- Way
f�1/1/4Y
xi.sf ai9
w
a
cn
1
ii
THORNTON -0-- : AVE.
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Proposal to Expand Citizens Advisory Committee for SB 498
Implementation
SB 498 became law during the 1987 session. It requires a Social Service
Advisory Council in all counties which are entitled to use some portion
of their Transportation Development Act funds for local streets and
roads (Article 8 counties). As you know, regional transportation
planning agencies in Article 8 counties must make findings regarding
"unmet transit needs" (i.e., either do not exist or exist but are not
reasonable to meet) before such funds may be used for road purposes.
The newly required Social Service Advisory Councils are to be
responsible for reviewing unmet needs testimony and submitting its
recommendation to the responsible commissions. These Councils are to be
comprised of elderly and handicapped individuals, representatives of
various social service agencies and social service transportation
providers. The Councils are envisioned to be involved in on -going
social service transportation planning, and are intended to meet more
often than one a year. Where councils or committees already exist,
the legislation indicates that these new requirements should be
incorporated into such existing mechanisms.
RCTC currently has a Citizens Advisory Committee which meets on a
regular basis. This Committee is now responsible for making
recommendations on unmet transit needs and other transportation planning
issues. The composition of the Committee includes some of the same
individuals which would be required of the Social Service Advisory
Councils. The most expeditious and appropriate way to comply with SB
498 requirements would be to revise and expand the make-up of the
current Citizens Advisory Committee. The Committee has expressed
support for this approach.
Approximately one-half of the terms of the existing Committee membership
are about to expire, and it will be necessary for RCTC to appoint or
reappoint members anyway. During the next month, it would be possible
to poll the existing Committee members to determine their interest in
reappointment. It would then be possible to review the composition of
the membership and contact appropriate organizations to identify
additional members for appointment. Those recommended for appointment
could then be brought back to RCTC for approval at the January
meeting. This would enable a restructured Committee to be in place in
time to review testimony received during hearings to be scheduled for
February and March 1988.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposal as outlined above.
PB/JR:nk
Agenda Item No. 5
RCTC December 2, 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Consultant Services to Review Highway Project Costs
During the November 4, 1987 meeting, RCTC discussed a proposal to
secure the services of a consulting engineer to review Caltrans'
project cost estimates included in the Expenditure Plan. Staff
was directed to negotiate with potential consultants and come
back with a specific proposal for action at the next meeting.
The financial limits for purposes of negotiation was set at
$15,000.
Two firms were contacted. A summary of their proposals ere as
follows:
Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, & Douglas (PBQ&D)
PBQ&D have offices in San Bernardino and Orange Counties.
They currently have contracts with SANBAG and OCTC for
highway related work, both project development and review of
Caltrans work. They propose a total of 160 hours, with most
work by mid -level management and supporting engineering
staff. The approach would be to meet with Caltrans to
evaluate the work performed in making the estimates. Costs
would be $10,500.
Bechtel Civil, Inc.
Bechtel currently has major contracts with the Santa Clara
County Traffic Authority, serving as project manager for
their sales tax program. They propose a total of 350 hours,
with at least 30% of the work by principals. The approach
would be to apply project cost estimating systems developed
for use in Santa Clara County to make independent cost
estimates, which would then be reviewed with Caltrans in the
event of major differences with Caltrans' estimates. Costs
would be $13, 5Q0. $ae,
Both firms are highly qualified. Because of the higher number of
hours, involvement of higher level members of the firm, and
experience dealing with cost estimations for highway projects,
staff (after conferring with D.J. Smith) recommends selecting
Bechtel Civil, Inc. to perform the work.
As indicated during the November meeting, the most expeditious
means of meeting contractual requirements would be to amend RCTC's
existing contract with D.J. Smith and Associates to obtain these
engineering services. In addition to administering a subcontract
1
Agenda Item No. 6
RCTC December 2, 1987
with Bechtel Civil, Inc., D.J. Smith would also assist ROTC staff
in meeting with Caltrans to review existing revenue assumptions
(Federal, State, and Sales Tax) used for the preliminary
Expenditure Plan. The cost of these additional services would be
$1,500.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve an amendment to the existing contract with D.J. Smith
Associates to:
- obtain the services of Bechtel Civil, Inc. to
cost estimate information for highway projects
in the preliminary Expenditure Plan,
- assist RCTC staff to develop alternative
assumptions for the Expenditure Plan, and
administer the services of Bechtel Civil,
Inc.
and
provide
included
revenue
lqi".°
The cost of such additional services would be set at $.44-T-43-94k--
JR:nk
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Renewal of Lease - Proposal to Move to Suite 300
The existing lease for our office in the Wells Fargo Bank
Building, Suite 302, will expire November 30, 1987. In
accordance with the agreement, the amount of the rent will
increase from $1.13 per square foot to $1.18 per square foot;
rent for the existing Suite 302 will increase to $1045.48 per
month.
However, the existing Suite 302 is too small to meet our current
needs (886 square feet). Suite 300 is now available for rental
(1289 square feet). Suite 300 would be large enough to provide
sufficient office space for the five authorized staff positions,
and also a conference room. The difference in cost for this larger
suite would be $475.54 per month, or $5,706.48 annually.
Because of close proximity, it would be possible to switch the name
and number plates and would not necessitate a change of address
for a move. Changing the existing telephone systems and
physically moving furniture would also be easy.
Subject to final negotiations, we anticipate that the lease would
still be a year to year agreement, with provision for RCTC to
continue the agreement subject to rent increases no greater than
the Los Angeles/Long Beach consumer price index.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to negotiate with Magnon/Main Street Building to
acquire the existing vacant Suite 300 for the RCTC offices.
JR: nk
Agenda Item No. 7
RCTC December 2, 1987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: SCAQMD's Proposed Regulation XV - Indirect Source/Trip
Reduction
Attached is a copy of the staff report on proposed Regulation XV
proposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). A public hearing on the proposed regulation is
scheduled for December 11, 1987 at 9:30 a.m., AQMD Offices, 9150
Flair Drive, E1 Monte, CA 91731.
The proposed regulation would require all employers of 100 or
more employees per worksite to implement a plan to increase
ridesharing. The plan must outline incentives to be offered to
employees which would increase average vehicle ridership. An
employer would be in violation of the regulation only if he or
she failed to submit and implement an approvable plan. This
regulation is proposed because vehicles contribute about 50% of
emissions causing ozone standard violations. This standard is
violated approximately 140 days/year in the South Coast Air
Basin. A reduction in vehicle use is essential if federal and
State air standards are to be achieved.
The proposed regulation would apply to the approximately 8,000
employers in the four counties in the South Coast Air Basin
employing 100 or more employees. In Riverside County, it is
estimated that there are approximately 350 employers with 100 or
more employees.
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and the SCAG
Transportation and Communications Committee (TCC) have taken
action to support the regulation subject to the application of
the regulation to the largest employers and then phasing in
smaller employers due to the large number of employers in the
region to which the regulation applies. The SCAG TCC recommended
starting with employers of 700 or more employees and then phasing
in at 500, 400, etc., until all employers of 100+ employees are
included.
Commission action on this item is not required. However, since
it would impact the transportation system in a positive way by
increasing average vehicle ridership, the Commission may want to
take a position of outright support or support with a phase in
approach recommended by LACTC and the SLAG TCC.
FS:nk
Agenda Item No. 8
RCTC December 2, 1987
STAFF REPORT ON
PROPOSED REGULATION XV
(TRIP REDUCTION/INDIRECT SOURCE)
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
November 2, 1987
81-91 sxolslsod ZYNOI YZINVOU0 - 8 xIax3adv
GI-8 xoiaxa as a350doiid s.Ma - xlax3ddY
c ssoYdWI WIdISla/NOIL lIN2W3'IdW/ WVHooxd
c-9 - • ssoYdWI 'IYIZH3s0d
s-, nx Hoireinoau 30 xolsdlxos30
v-E xolsonaous u
sab2a
SINaINO0 ao 318YI
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Regulation xv was developed in an effort to
reduce emissions from vehicle sources in the South Coast Air
Basin. Federal standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide and
carbon monoxide, as established under the Clean Air Act, are
exceeded during approximately one third of the days in a
year in the South Coast Air _Basin. Furthermore,
approximately 498 of reactive organic gases (ROG) and 71% of
oxides of nitrogen (NO ) are emitted from mobile sources.
In addition, approximately, 97% of carbon monoxide stems
from mobile sources. These pollutants then react in
sunlight to form ozone and create the smog for which the
South Coast Air Basin is reknown. Table I outlines the
relative contribution of mobile and stationary sources to
total man-made ROG, Nox, and CO during 1985 in the Basin.
TABLE I
1985 EMISSION INVENTORY SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
(tons/average annual day)
Sources ROG NOx CQ
Mobile 595 700 4,860
(49%) (71%) (97%)
Stationary 615 285 125
(51%) (29%) (3%)
(1985 Emissions Inventory)
The intent of Regulation XV (Trip Reduction/Indirect Source)
is to reduce both the number of trips between home and the
worksite .and the vehicle miles traveled between these
locations. It is also the intent of the District to
encourage the formation of transportation management
organizations and to work with local jurisdictions in
improving trip reduction activities. By developing a
region -wide approach to the vehicle emissions in the South
Coast Air Basin (SCAB), the District hopes to improve air
- 3 -
quality within the SCAB. Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR)
figures have been targeted for the source receptor areas
throughout the SCAB.
According to the latest growth projections, the population
in the South Coast Basin is expected to increase by nearly
half between 1985 and 2010. (SCAG, Draft Baseline
projection, February, 1987) During rush hour, approximately
7 million people commute to and from work (SCAG, Travel
Forecast Atlas, August 1985). Furthermore, the average
vehicle occupancy during the work -home commute in the Basin
is 1.13. (Southern California Association of Governments,
Travel Forecast Atlas, August 1985)
As the population continues to increase and the average
vehicle occupancy remains the same, both vehicle miles
traveled and vehicle trips would be expected to increase and
congestion to become even greater. Because so many people
are driving solo to and from work, traffic congestion in the
South Coast Basin is already at a critical level.
II. Description of Regulation XV
Regulation XV would require employers with 100 or more
employees to develop and implement a trip reduction plan for
those employees who report to work between 6:00 a.m. and
10:00 a.m. These employers would be required to designate a
trained transportation coordinator to develop and implement
the trip reduction plan. This plan would include an
inventory of current measures used by the employer to
increase AVR, a verifiable estimate of the current AVR at
the worksite, and a list of incentives the employer would
commit to undertake which could reasonably be expected to
achieve the AVR target within 12 months of plan approval.
Beginning 180 days after adoption of the regulation, the
District would begin issuing notices to employers to submit
a plan. After this notice is received, an employer would
have 90 days to submit a plan and the accompanying
documentation to the District's Executive officer. If
additional time is needed, it could be granted for good
cause, but would only be effective if requested in writing
with a new submittal date specified.
Penalties would not be imposed on employers who put forth
good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. Failure
to submit a plan or to offer any incentive included in the
plan would, however, be considered a violation of the rule.
However, any employer who felt that a plan had been
improperly disapproved, could appeal to the Hearing Board
- 4 -
within 10 days of receiving notice of the disapproval. Any
employer subject to a city or county ordinance equally
stringent in achieving the AVR would be allowed to file for
an exemption from the requirements of this regulation.
III. Potential Impacts
A. Deletion of Regulation VII
The District is requesting approval by EPA to substitute
Regulation XV for Regulation VII. This would allow the
requirements of Regulation XV to supersede those of
Regulation VII. If this approval is not granted, both
Regulations would, however, be consolidated into one form.
The primary distinctions between the two regulations are
outlined in Table II.
TABLE II
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REGULATION XV
AND REGULATION VII
REGULATION XV REGULATION VII
Employers subject Employers with 100
to regulation or more employees
per worksite
Employers with 100
or more employees
per shift
Plan
stage
Implementation
Daily
Second- and third -
stage air
quality episodes
Trained
Transportation Required Not Required
Coordinator
B. Air Quality Benefits
According to the State of California Employment Development
Department, there are approximately 8,000 employers in the
four counties in the SCAB who employ 100 or more persons.
If the AVR of these employers were to be raised from 1.13 to
- 5 -
1.5, on average, throughout the Basin, we would expect a
reduction of 14,800,000 vehicles miles traveled (VMT) daily,
or approximately a 25% reduction in the vehicle miles
traveled by passenger vehicles in the SCAB during the
morning rush hours. Furthermore, we would expect that
approximately 740,000 fewer daily vehicle trips would be
made between home and the worksite. By reducing the number
of vehicles on the road and the trips they make, air
pollution would be reduced because there would be fewer
vehicles emitting pollutants.
(Air Ouality handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, April 1987)
Following in Table III are the estimated emissions
reductions that would be achieved by the reduction in
vehicle miles and vehicle trips:
TABLE III
ESTIMATED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS *
Estimated Reduction
Pollutant (tons/day)
Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
11 - 24
16 - 34
100 - 216
* Based on Draft 1987 Emission Inventory, SCAQMD.
C. Effects an Traffic Congestion
With fewer cars on the road, we would also expect traffic
congestion to be reduced. This is an important secondary
benefit from the Regulation because less congestion
translates into reduced commute time and increased vehicle
speeds on highways. Vehicles traveling at higher speeds
emit less pollution than at lower speeds. *
- 6 -
D. Employer Cost
The cost of developing and implementing a trip reduction
plan will vary both by employee population and the specific
incentives an employer decides to offer to comply with the
regulation. In addition, there would also be the cost of
training the rideshare coordinator. The initial plan review
and annual update fees proposed would be .based on the
administrative costs of reviewing the plan. The current
Regulation VII Transportation Management Plan fees are $125
for an initial filing fee and $50 for annual renewals.
IV. Program Implementation / District Impacts
District Staff intends to have the draft Regulation XV
replace the existing Regulation VII, Emergency Episode
Transportation Management Plan Program. The resources
allocated to Transportation Management Program
Implementation include seven full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions. If Regulation XV is adopted, staff would
reallocate these resources to begin implementation of
Regulation XV. Any requests for additional resources
necessary for implementation would be developed during the
regular budget cycle.
Under Regulation VII, the District has approximately 4,000
employer plans. Regulation XV may apply to over 8,000
employers, but the the exact number.will not be known until
we update and refine our existing employer database. If
Regulation XV were to apply to the higher estimate of 8,000
employers, staff estimates that an additional 6-9 FTE
positions would be needed for effective program
implementation. The exact number, of course, depends upon
the number of firms subject to the Regulation.
District staff also intends to apply the current fee
schedule for the Regulation VII, Transportation Management
Plan Program evaluation ($125 for first time submittal and
$50 for the annual review fee) for Regulation XV
implementation. Staff may propose changes to Rule 306 based
on evaluation of the resource requirements necessary for
program implementation. It is our plan to develop a
complete program implementation resource requirement and fee
schedule changes (if necessary) as part of the FY 1988-89
budget. The initial internal budget submittal schedule
begins in February 1988.
- 7 -
DRAFT 11/2/87
TRIP REDUCTION/INDIRECT
SOURCE REGULATION XV
Rule 1501 General
This regulation sets forth the actions employers which
employ 100 or more persons at any worksite must take to
promote employee participation in trip reduction and
ridesharing programs. These programs are intended to reduce
emissions from vehicles used for commuting between home and
the worksite. It is the Intent of the District to work with
affected employers and local jurisdictions in improving trip
reduction activities, to encourage small employers to join
transportation management organizations, and to evaluate the
effectiveness of this regulation two years after it has been
fully implemented to insure that it is as effective as
possible.
It is also the intent of the District to substitute the
provisions of Regulation X4 for those of Regulation VII. If
the Environmental Protection Agency does not approve
deletion of the traffic abatement requirements of Regulation
VII, the District will consolidate the two regulations so
that employers will Doe required to submit only a single
plan.
The implementation of this regulation will begin 180 days
after its adoption. The regulation requires the Executive
Officer to give notice of plan requirements to 1/12 of the
affected employers each month. Affected employers shall
submit plans ninety days after receiving notice. Affected
employers must review and update the plans annually
following the same schedule. Any affected employer subject
to a city or county trip reduction ordinance which is at
least as effective as this regulation in increasing average
vehicle ridership (AVR) may be exempted from the
requirements 'o3 this reguiation.
- 8 -
DRAFT 11/2/67
Rule 1502 Definitions
For the purpose of this regulation, the following
definitions apply:
(a) Alternative transportation means the use of non -motor
vehicle modes of transportation. Walking and bicycling
are examples.
(b) Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) means the figure
derived by dividing the employee population at a given
worksite that reports to work weekdays between 6:00
a.m. and 10:00 a.m. by the number of vehicles` driven
by these employees commuting from home to the worksite
during these hours. AVR may be calculated using weekly
or biweekly averaging periods. The applicable employee
population is multiplied by the number of weekdays, in
the selected averaging period, then divided by the
total number of vehicles driven by these employees to
the worksite during the same period.
*Vehicles counted shall exclude bicycles, transit vehicles,
buses serving multiple worksites, and cars stopping on route
to other worksites. District approved low pollution
vehicles shall also be excluded.
(c) Central City Area.(CCA) means the Los Angeles City area
bounded as described below:
(1) by the Santa Monica Freeway (Route 10) from Union
Avenue to Alameda Street;
(2) Alameda Street from the Santa Monica Freeway to
Sunset Boulevard;
(3) Sunset Boulevard from Alameda Street to the Harbor
Freeway (Route 110);
(4) the Harbor Freeway from Sunset Boulevard to the
Hollywood Freeway (Route 101);
(5) the Hollywood Freeway to Temple Street;
(6) Temple Street from Belmont Avenue to Union Avenue;
and
(7) Union Avllule from Temple Street to the Santa
Monica Freeway.
(d) Employee means any person employed by an employer as
defined in 1502(e).
- 9 -
DRAFT 11/2/87
(i)
Employer means any person, firm, business, educational
institution, government agency, or other entity which
employs 100 or more people at a single worksite as
defined in 1502(f).
Executive Officer means the Executive Officer of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Ridesharing means the cooperative effort of two or more
people traveling together. Utilization of carpools,
vanpools, buspools, taxipools, trains and public
transit are all methods of ridesharinq.
Ridesharing and trip reduction incentives mean
inducements offered to individuals to encourage
ridesharinq and trip reduction. Examples of incentives
are included in Rule 1503(d).
Source/Receptor Areas are areas established by the
District based on air monitoring and geographical and
meteorological factors. A source area is that area in
which air contaminants are discharged. A receptor area
is an area in which the contaminants accumulate and are
measured. An area can be a source area, a receptor
area, or both. The map in Attachment 1 to this
regulation shows the source/receptor areas.
Trained transportation coordinator means a person who
has completed a training program in transportation
management approved by the Trip Reduction Training
Coordinator Advisory Committee or who can demonstrate
i perienceequivalent to that covered in an approved
transportation management program. The traird g
program must include, but need not be limited to:
review of available commuter matching resources and
services, detailed explanation of the eligible
activities listed in Rule 1503(d), explanation of the
relationship between transportation management and air
quality, and guidance in developing a trip reduction
plan. The District will provide a list of training
programs developed by the Trip Reduction Training
Coordinator Advisory Committee to each employer subject
to this Rule.
(k) Worksite means a building or grouping of buildings
located within the District which are in actual
physical contact or separated solely by a private or
public roadway or other private or public right -of way,
and which are owned or operated by the same employer
(or by employers under common control).
r
- 10 -
DRAFT 11/2/87
Rule 1503 Control of Indirect Sources - Increase in Average
Vehicle Ridership by Employers of 100 or more
Employees
One hundred eighty (180) days after adoption of this
regulation, the Executive Officer will begin sending
written notices of the requirements of this regulation
to employers, as defined by Rule 1502(e). Following
written notice employers shall submit to the Executive
Officer a trip reduction plan which shall meet the
requirements of this regulation. The trip reduction
plan shall be submitted within 90 days of the notice.
(b) Submitted plans must specify the measures the employer
will take to achieve the specified average vehicle
ridership (AvR) for employee vehicles subject to the
regulation.
(a)
AVR targets are:
1.75 AVR in the Central City Area of Source
Receptor Area 1;
1.5 AVR in Source Receptor Areas 1 (excluding the
Central City Area),2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 41, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35;
1.3 AVR in Source Receptor Areas 13, 14, 15,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36,
37, 38, 39, and 40.
(See attachment 1 for locations of specific
source receptor areas)
(c) The plans shall be prepared by a trained transportation
coordinator and shall include:
(1) Designation of a trained transportation
coordinator responsible for implementation of the
plan.
(2) An inventory of current measures used by the
employer intended to achieve increases in Average
Vehicle Ridership.
A verifiable estimate of the existing Average
Vehicle Ridership at the worksite, as defined in
Rule 1502(b). where multiple worksites are under
the game ownership and in close proximity although
(3)
DRAFT 11/2/67
separated by more than one right-of-way, a single
plan may be prepared for all worksites.
(4) A list of specific incentives the employer will
undertake which can reasonably be expected to lead
to achievement of the target AVR level within 12
months of plan approval.
(d) Increasing AVR may be achieved by, but is not limited
to, the following:
(1) Direct financial incentives for ridesharing;
(2) Establishment of carpool, buspool or vanpool
programs;
(3) Partial or full- subsidization of parking for
ridesharing employees;
(4) Full or partial subsidization of carpools,
vanpools, buspools, shuttles or use of public
transit;
(5) Provision of an allowance for employees to utilize
company -owned fleet vehicles for ridesharing
purposes;
(6) Preferential parking for vehicles used for
ridesharing;
(7) Facility improvements which provide preferential
access and/or egress for ridesharing employees;
(8) Facility improvements to encourage use of bicycles
(showers, bike racks, etc.);
(9) Active use of a computerized rideshare matching
service such as Commuter Computer or Orange County
Transit District Commuter Ridesharing Matching
Services, or an effective in-house rideshare
matching service;
(10) Compressed work weeks such as a 4/40 or 9/80 work
schedule where employees work 40 hours in fewer
than five days in one week or 80 hours in fewer
than ten days in two weeks;
(11) Flexible work hours that facilitate employee
ridesharing;
(12) Telecommuting or work at home.
- 12 -
DRAFT 11/2/67
Rule 1504 Procedural Requirements for Plans
(a) The written notice specified in Rule 1503(a) shall be
served personally, or by registered or certified mail.
Each employer so served shall submit to the Executive
Officer the plans and information described in the
notice within 90 days after the receipt of the notice.
In the event that the employer reasonably needs more
time to prepare and submit a plan meeting the
requirements of this regulation, additional time may
be sought from the Executive Officer. Additional time
may be granted for good cause, but such extensions
shall only be effective if in writing, with a new
submittal date specified. The Executive Officer shall
notify the employer whether or not the extension has
been granted within 15 days of receipt of request for
extension.
(b) After the employer submits the plan, the Executive
Officer must either approve or disapprove the plan
within 60 days. Notice of approval or disapproval
shall be given by registered or certified mail. If the
plan is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall
be given in writing to the employer. Any plan
disapproved by the Executive Officer must be revised by
the employer and resubmitted to the Executive Officer
within 30 days of the notice of disapproval, or the
employer shall be deemed to be in violation of Rule
1504 (f). If the employer believes that the plan meets
the requirements of this regulation and that the plan
was improperly disapproved, the employer may appeal the
disapproval to the District Hearing Board. An appeal
of a disapproval must be made within 10 days after the
employer receives the'notice of disapproval.
(c) An approved plan may be revised between plan submittal
dates by submitting a plan revision. The revision
shall not be effective until approved by the Executive
Officer.
(d) Each employer must review its implementation of the
plan, and update and resubmit the plan annually. The
review shall focus on ridesharing and trip -reduction
incentives offered by the employer. The review and
update shall consist of a report that:
(1) estimates AVR levels attained,
(2) verifies that the plan incentives have been
offered,
- 13 -
DRAFT 11/2/87
!1
(3) describes use of those incentives offered by
employers,
(4) evaluates why the plan did or did not work, and an
explanation.of why the revised plan is likely to
achieve the AVR target levels,
(5) lists additional incentives which can reasonably
be expected to correct deficiencies, and
explains why the additional incentives are likely
to result in achieving AVR target levels.
(e) The District may perform follow up audits on a
selective basis. The District shall notify the
employer of the submittal deadline for the review and
update. The same deadlines shall apply as to a first
time plan submittal in Rule 1504(b). Failure to review
and update the plan will be deemed a violation of Rule
1504(f).
(f) If the employer complies with all provisions of the
approved plan, but fails to meet the AVR target
specified for that employer in Rule 1503(c)(5), such
failure is not a violation of this rule. Failure to
submit a plan, submit an annual update, or offer any
incentive in an approved plan, is a violation of this
rule and is subject to the penalties outlined in
Article 7, Chapter 4, Part 4 of Division 26 of the
Health and Safety Code.
(g) The review and updated plan shall be submitted twelve
(12) months from the date of the initial plan approval
date.
(6)
- 14
DRAFT 11/2/87
Rule 1505 - Exemptions
(a) Any employer subject to a city or county ordinance
which requires the implementation of trip reduction
measures by that employer may be exempted from the
requirements of this Regulation. In order to obtain
this exemption, the employer must make written
application to the Executive Officer, and the Executive
Officer must determine that the requirements of the
ordinance are at least as effective as this regulation
in increasing AVR at the employer's worksite. The
written application must be made within 30 days after
initially receipt and notice from the Executive Officer
pursuant to Rule 1503, or within 30 days after
receiving notice of an annual review and update.
(b) In order to maintain this exemption, the employer shall
submit an annual report to the Executive Officer
describing the trip reduction incentives being offered
and the actual AVR levels achieved at the employer's
worksite. The Executive Officer may make the exemption
conditional upon maintaining a specified AVR level at
the worksite, and may revoke the exemption at such time
as he determines that the specified AVR level is not
being maintained. In the event that the city or county
ordinance under which the employer qualified for the
exemption is amended or rescinded, the exemption is
void and the employer must reapply for an exemption
within 60 days of the date of amendment or rescission.
- 15 -
APPENDIX B
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
REGULATION XV WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 28 i 29, 1987
HELD AT THE PASADENA CENTER, PASADENA
ORGANIZATIONAL POSITIONS
The following employers and interested parties delivered or submitted
remarks indicating their support or opposition at the public
workshops.
ORGANIZATION
Ambassador College
American National
Can Company
Atlantic Richfield
Company
Calif. Federal
Savings
Calif. State Univ.
City of Brea
City of Burbank
Gould Inc.
Los Angeles Chamber
of Commerce
Los Angeles Dept. of
Water h Power
McDonnell Douglas
Orange County
Sanitation Dist.
SUPPORT
LOCATION
Pasadena
Los Angeles
•
Carson
Rosemead
Long Beach
Brea
Burbank
El Monte
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Long Beach
DUMBER OF
fMPLOYFES
1,000
200
1,000
3,000
Not indicated
200
1000
1200
50
12,000
25,000
Fountain Valley 1600
-16-
Orange County
Transportation Comm.
Planning Commission
Research
Reuland Electric
Southern Calif.
Edison Company
Southern Calif.
Gas Company
Ryan Synder
i Associates
Santa Ana Not indicated
Santa Monica 10
Industry zoo
Rosemead 2,000
Los Angeles 2000
Los Angeles 1
OPPOSITION
NUMBER OF
ORGANIZATION LOCATION EMPLOYEES
John Billheimer Riverside 1
Consultant
Cal Poly Pomona Pomona 2225
Huntington Memorial Pasadena 2800
Hospital
International Electric Burbank 100
Company
Rio Hondo College Whittier 600
The Irvine Company Irvine 700
CORRECTED COPY
South Coast
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE. CA 91731 (818) 572-6200
Agenda 4,c.
October 30, 1987
South Coast Air Quality
Management District Board
Set a Public Hearing to Adopt Proposed
Regulation XV - Indirect Source/Trip Reduction
The intent of Proposed Regulation XV Indirect Source/Trip
Reduction is to reduce both vehicle miles traveled and trips
between home and the worksite. If approved, the Regulation
would affect employers who employ 100 or more employees.
These employers would be expected to develop and implement a
transportation management plan to achieve specified Average
Vehicle Ridership target for employees who arrive at the
worksite between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m.
The Proposed Regulation was developed during the past seven
months in conjunction with the Trip Reduction Advisory
Committee (TRPAC). TRPAC membership included Board -Members
Norton Younglove, Faye Myers Dastrup, Tom Eichhorn/Edward
Mountford, Sabrina Schiller, and Henry Wedaa. In addition,
seven representatives from industry served on the Committee:
Dick Butler, Disneyland; David Grayson/Jim Ortner,
Automobile Club of Southern California; Bob Johnston, ARCO;
Judith Johnston -Weston, Central City Association; Diana
Palmer, Robert Wyman, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce;
Martin Wachs, University of California at Los Angeles; and
Brad Williams, Irvine Company.
Four workshop sessions on Proposed Regulation XV were held
at the Pasadena Center on October 28 and 29, as requested by
the Board on October 2, 1987. A copy of the Staff Report
and Proposed Regulation are attached.
THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD
--Set a public hearing for the December 11, 1987 Board
meeting to adopt Proposed Regulation XV - Indirect
Source/Trip Reduction.
ctfully,
James M. Lents, Ph.D.
Executive Officer
JAA:EN:drw
Attachments
P