Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
07 July 13, 2011 Commission
O nY) -60 --()WO r • • • RECORDS Riverside County Transportation Commission MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside F COMMISSIONERS .6 Chair — Greg Pettis First Vice Chair — John J. Benoit Second Vice Chair — Karen Spiegel Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Michael Wilson, City of Indio To Be Appointed, City of Jurupa Valley Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Marcelo Co / Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik / William Kroonen, City of Palm Desrt Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris Scott Hines / Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Scott Miller / Andrew Kotyuk, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. AMENDED AGENDA Revision to Agenda Item 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, July 13, 2011 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www. rctc. org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 8, 2011 6. PUBLIC HEARING - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP); 2) Approve the FY 2011/12 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 531 1 POP for Riverside County; 3) Approve the FY 2011/12 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit; 4) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-01 1, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds". 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS - The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 8A. 2011 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE Page 19 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the 2011 State Route 91 Implementation Plan update. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 3 8B. FISCAL YEARS 2012-16 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Page 52 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted. 8C. 2009 MEASURE A PROGRAM MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 54 1) Approve the 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year levels for the following cities: • Banning • Indian Wells • Murrieta • Blythe • Indio • Norco • Canyon Lake • Lake Elsinore • Perris • Corona • Moreno Valley • Riverside • Desert Hot Springs • Temecula; and 2) Approve the city of Riverside's (Riverside) request for special consideration regarding its 2009 MOE base year level. 8D. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 60 1) Receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2009/10; and 2) Make a finding that the city of Hemet (Hemet) did not meet its maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement and request a response from Hemet regarding such noncompliance prior to taking any action. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 4 8E. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CALLAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY DBA WESTERN AREA SECURITY SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 69 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-25-071-05, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 06-25-071-00, with Callan Management Company dba Western Area Security Services (WASS) to provide security guard services at the five Commission -owned commuter rail stations in an amount not to exceed $300,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8F. AGREEMENT WITH VENDSIGHT, INC. TO PROVIDE A STATION ADVERTISING REVENUE PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 74 1) Award Agreement No. 11-24-029-00 to Vendsight, Inc. to provide services associated with the development, management, and maintenance of a station advertising revenue program for a five-year term, and one five-year option to extend the agreement; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including the option term, on behalf of the Commission. 8G. PROPOSITION 1B PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND SERVICE ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT SUPPORTING RESOLUTION FOR THE COMMISSION'S COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM Page 120 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances for the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Bond Program". Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 5 8H. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Page 124 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the transit operators' compliance status report for the FY 2009/10 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). 81. FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 136 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 to the existing Corona, Mira Loma, and Riverside buspools; and 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments. 8J. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA Page 142 Overview This item is for the Commission to grant the city of Temecula (Temecula) an extension to June 30, 2012, for SB 821 program funds approved for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 6 8K. FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 AGREEMENTS FOR REGIONAL RIDESHARE SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 150 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-41-140-00 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG to deliver commuter/employer rideshare services, regional ridematching services, and operation of an Inland Empire 511 (1E511) system for FY 2011/12; 2) Approve Agreement No. 10-41-029-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 10-41-029-00, with SANBAG to clarify the reimbursement relationship regarding the FY 2010/11 rideshare/IE511 agreement; 3) Approve the following agreements for regional ridematching services: • Agreement No. 09-41-075-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 09-41-075-00, with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); • Agreement No. 11-41-139-00 with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA); and • Agreement No. 06-41-082-06, Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 06-41-082-00, with the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC); and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8L. AMENDMENTS TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 167 1) Approve Amendment No. 07-45-134-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 07-45-134-00, with Pepe's Towing to provide freeway service patrol (FSP) services on Beat No. 4 in the amount of $180,000; • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 7 2) Approve Amendment No. 06-45-046-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 06-45-046-00, with Tri-City Towing to provide FSP services for Beat No. 8 in the amount of $ 100,000 and to extend the term of the agreement through December 31, 2011; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8M. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) SB 446 (Dutton) - Support; b) HR 1825 (Blumenauer) - Support; and c) S. 1034 (Schumer) - Support. Page 175 9. AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE 2009 BONDS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 178 1) Receive and file a report on the proposed amendments, including the Fee Letter, to each of the three Standby Bond Purchase Agreements (SBPAs) between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan), as liquidity facility provider for the 2009 Bonds; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 11-010, "Resolution Authorizing the Release of All or a Portion of the Debt Service Reserve Fund Related to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series A, 2009 Series B, and 2009 Series C, the Execution and Delivery of a Fourth Supplemental Indenture, an Offering Memorandum, and the Taking of All Other Actions Necessary in Connection Therewith "; 3) Approve the draft Offering Memorandum related to the remarketing of the 2009 Bonds; Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 8 4) Approve the draft Fourth Supplemental Indenture between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, and authorize the Executive Director to approve and execute the final Fourth Supplemental Indenture; and 5) Approve the estimated costs to be incurred in connection with the amendments to be paid from 2009 Measure A Bond Financing Program funds and the execution of related agreements, as required. 10. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PERRIS VALLEY LINE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CERTIFICATION AND PROJECT APPROVAL A 1 AND APPROVING THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT Page 296 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-013, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Environmental Findings and a Statement of Project Benefits Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (Sch #2009011046), Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approving the Perris Valley Line Project". 14 Certify the Perris Valley Linc (PVL) final environmental impact report (EIR); and 2} Approve the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Aet (CEQA) Guidelines §15090 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview Page 300 This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. • Report on the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Rail Conference 2011, by Chair Pettis and Commissioners Daryl Busch and Ron Roberts 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, September 14, 2011, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item fisted on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, July 13, 2011 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 8, 2011 6. PUBLIC HEARING - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP); 2) Approve the FY 2011/12 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 531 1 POP for Riverside County; 3) Approve the FY 2011/12 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit; 4) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-01 1, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds". 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS - The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 8A. 2011 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE Page 19 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the 2011 State Route 91 Implementation Plan update. • • • a Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 3 • • 8B. FISCAL YEARS 2012-16 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Page 52 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted. 8C. 2009 MEASURE A PROGRAM MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 54 1) Approve the 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year levels for the following cities: • Banning • Indian Wells • Murrieta Blythe • Indio • Norco Canyon Lake • Lake Elsinore • Perris Corona • Moreno Valley • Riverside Desert Hot Springs • Temecula; and 2) Approve the city of Riverside's (Riverside) request for special consideration regarding its 2009 MOE base year level. 8D. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 60 1) Receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2009/10; and 2) Make a finding that the city of Hemet (Hemet) did not meet its maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement and request a response from Hemet regarding such noncompliance prior to taking any action. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 4 8E. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CALLAN MANAGEMENT • COMPANY DBA WESTERN AREA SECURITY SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 69 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-25-071-05, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 06-25-071-00, with Callan Management Company dba Western Area Security Services (WASS) to provide security guard services at the five Commission -owned commuter rail stations in an amount not to exceed $300,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8F. AGREEMENT WITH VENDSIGHT, INC. TO PROVIDE A STATION ADVERTISING REVENUE PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 74 1) Award Agreement No. 11-24-029-00 to Vendsight, Inc. to provide services associated with the development, management, and maintenance of a station advertising revenue program for a five-year term, and one five-year option to extend the agreement; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including the option term, on behalf of the Commission. 8G. PROPOSITION 1B PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND SERVICE ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT SUPPORTING RESOLUTION FOR THE COMMISSION'S COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM Page 120 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances for the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Bond Program". • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 5 8H. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Page 124 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the transit operators' compliance status report for the FY 2009/10 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). 81. FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 136 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 to the existing Corona, Mira Loma, and Riverside buspools; and 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments. 8J. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA Page 142 Overview This item is for the Commission to grant the city of Temecula (Temecula) an extension to June 30, 2012, for SB 821 program funds approved for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 6 8K. FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 AGREEMENTS FOR REGIONAL RIDESHARE • SERVICES Page 150 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-41-140-00 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG to deliver commuter/employer rideshare services, regional ridematching services, and operation of an Inland Empire 511 (1E511) system for FY 2011/12; 2) Approve Agreement No. 10-41-029-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 10-41-029-00, with SANBAG to clarify the reimbursement relationship regarding the FY 2010/11 rideshare/IE511 agreement; 3) Approve the following agreements for regional ridematching services: • Agreement No. 09-41-075-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 09-41-075-00, with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); • Agreement No. 11-41-139-00 with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA); and • Agreement No. 06-41-082-06, Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 06-41-082-00, with the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC); and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8L. AMENDMENTS TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENTS Page 167 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Amendment No. 07-45-134-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 07-45-134-00, with Pepe's Towing to provide freeway service patrol (FSP) services on Beat No. 4 in the amount of $ 180,000; • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 7 • • • 2) Approve Amendment No. 06-45-046-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 06-45-046-00, with Tri-City Towing to provide FSP services for Beat No. 8 in the amount of $ 100,000 and to extend the term of the agreement through December 31, 2011; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8M. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) SB 446 (Dutton) - Support; b) HR 1825 (Blumenauer) - Support; and c) S. 1034 (Schumer) - Support. Page 175 9. AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE 2009 BONDS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 178 1) Receive and file a report on the proposed amendments, including the Fee Letter, to each of the three Standby Bond Purchase Agreements (SBPAs) between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan), as liquidity facility provider for the 2009 Bonds; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 11-010, "Resolution Authorizing the Re/ease of All or a Portion of the Debt Service Reserve Fund Related to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series A, 2009 Series B, and 2009 Series C, the Execution and Delivery of a Fourth Supplemental Indenture, an Offering Memorandum, and the Taking of All Other Actions Necessary in Connection Therewith"; 3) Approve the draft Offering Memorandum related to the remarketing of the 2009 Bonds; Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 13, 2011 Page 8 4) Approve the draft Fourth Supplemental Indenture between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, and authorize the Executive Director to approve and execute the final Fourth Supplemental Indenture; and 5) Approve the estimated costs to be incurred in connection with the amendments to be paid from 2009 Measure A Bond Financing Program funds and the execution of related agreements, as required. 10. PERRIS VALLEY LINE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CERTIFICATION AND PROJECT APPROVAL Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 296 1) Certify the Perris Valley Line (PVL) final environmental impact report (EIR); and 2) Approve the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15090. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview Page 300 This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. • Report on the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Rail Conference 2011, by Chair Pettis and Commissioners Daryl Busch and Ron Roberts 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, September 14, 2011, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Greg Pettis at 9:33 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Douglas Hanson led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent • • Steve Adams Marion Ashley Ben Benoit John Benoit Roger Berg Bob Botts Daryl Busch Bob Buster Marcelo Co Mary Craton Joseph DeConinck Rick Gibbs Berwin Hanna Douglas Hanson Jan Harnik 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Terry Henderson Steven Hernandez Scott Hines Darcy Kuenzi Bob Magee Glenn Miller Greg Pettis Ron Roberts Adam Rush Larry Smith Karen Spiegel Jeff Stone Raymond Wolfe Ella Zanowic Scott Matas Scott Miller Steve Pougnet John F. Tavaglione Deborah Barmack, Executive Director of San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), presented Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, with a SANBAG award for his excellence in guidance and work on behalf of SANBAG during Jennifer Franco's assignment in Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 2 • 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 11, 2011 M/S/C (Henderson/Spiegel) to approve the minutes of May 11, 2011 meeting as submitted. Abstain: Berg 6. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager, presented the proposed Budget for FY 2011/12, and discussed the following areas: • Budget adjustments; • Budget summary; • Funding sources and comparison; • Summary of uses; • Management services; • Regional programs; • Capital program uses; • Capital projects and operations expenditures and highlights; • Functional uses breakdown; • Measure A management services; and • Final steps. Chair Pettis announced the continuance of the public hearing from the May 11 meeting and requested comments from the public at this time. No comments were received from the public and the Chair closed the public hearing. M/S/C (Stone/Craton) to adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2011/12. 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Bob Buster requested the following agenda items be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion: • Agenda Item 8N, "Fiscal Year 2011/12 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations"; • Agenda Item 80, "State and Federal Legislative Update"; • Agenda Item 8P, "Breaking Down Barriers Initiative"; and • Agenda Item 8Q "Transportation Finance Legislation". • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 3 M/S/C (Stone/Adams) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 8A. APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Approve Resolution No. 11-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2011/12". 8B. FUND BALANCE POLICY 1) Adopt Resolution No. 11-007, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Fund Balance Policy"; and 2) Adopt the Fund Balance Policy. 8C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2011; and 2) Approve a budget adjustment to decrease debt proceeds by $15 million, decrease debt service interest expenditures by $1 million, and increase debt service principal expenditures by $17,284,000 for a net increase in FY 2010/11 expenditures of $1,284,000. 8D. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4 (Q4) 2010. 8E. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UTILITY AND PRIVATE USE LICENSES ON COMMISSION PROPERTY 1) Approve the revisions to the RCTC Right of Way Policies and Procedures manual to include the policy recommendations for utility and private use licenses on Commission properties; 2) Authorize staff to move forward with negotiation of market value rates on utility and private use licenses; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute utility and private use licenses and agreements. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 4 8F. AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION PUBLIC OUTREACH SERVICES 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call construction support services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $445,000; a) Agreement No. 11-31-128-00 to Green Corn, Inc; and b) Agreement No. 11-31-129-00 to Westbound Communications; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to execute task orders awarded to these consultants under the terms of the agreements. 8G. AUTO CENTER DRIVE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT 1) Allocate $16 million in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to the city of Corona (Corona) in support of the Auto Center Drive grade separation project to front Proposition 1B Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) funds; 2) Approve Agreement No. 11-67-131-00 with Corona for reimbursement of TCIF/CMAQ funds; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8H. GRAPHIC DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES 1) Award Agreement No. 11-15-067-00 to Geographics for the provision of graphic design and communications services on an as - needed, time and expense basis, pursuant to its proposed fixed unit rates, for a two-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $2 million; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 5 81. AGREEMENTS WITH C.T. GEORGIOU PAINTING CO., BROCK SERVICE CALIFORNIA, AND U.S. NATIONAL CORPORATION TO PROVIDE ON -CALL PAINTING SERVICES FOR COMMISSION -OWNED COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call painting services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $750,000; a) Agreement No. 11-24-056-00 with C.T. Georgiou Painting Co.; b) Agreement No. 11-24-112-00 with Brock Service California; and c) Agreement No. 11-24-113-00 with U.S. National Corporation; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements. 8J. AGREEMENT WITH A.J. FISTES CORPORATION TO PROVIDE SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE REFURBISHMENT OF STATION PLATFORM TACTILE WARNING SURFACES AT THE RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN, LA SIERRA, AND WEST CORONA COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 1) Award Agreement No. 11-24-064-00 to A.J. Fistes Corporation for services associated with the refurbishment of station platform tactile warning surfaces at three Commission -owned commuter rail stations in the amount of $143,685, plus a contingency amount of $14,369, for a total amount not to exceed $158,054; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8K. FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; and 2) Approve the FY 2011/12 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 17.04% for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and 17.80% for the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 6 8L. MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS CAPITAL MATCH FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 SECTION 5310 PROGRAMS 1) Allocate Measure A Specialized Transit funds of $80,835 to provide the required capital match for the FFY 2008/09 Section 5310 program as follows: a) $11,470 to Care -A -Van Transit Systems, Inc. (Care -A -Van); and b) $15,943 to Care Connexxus, Inc. (CCI); c) $6,767 to Peppermint Ridge; d) $46,655 to Valley Resource Center for the Retarded, Inc. (VRCR); 2) Approve agreements with the following FFY 2008/09 Section 5310 grant recipients for Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County as follows: a) Agreement No. 11-26-114-00 with Care -A -Van for $11,470; a) Agreement No. 11-26-115-00 with CCI for $15,943; b) Agreement No. 11-26-116-00 with Peppermint Ridge for $6,767; and c) Agreement No. 11-26-117-00 with VRCR for $46,655; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8M. FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2009/10 - 2010/11 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 CAPITAL GRANT APPLICATIONS 1) Adopt the FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the local review committee (LRC); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 11-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan", certifying that the projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan; and 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). 9. FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 - FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director, presented the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for FY 2011/12 and FY 2013/14, highlighting the following items: • • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 7 • Definition, purpose, and need of an SRTP; • Three apportionment areas and eight public operators; • Fund estimate; • Timeline; • Highlights by public operator for FY 2011/12; and • Next steps. M/S/C (Stone/Henderson) to approve, in concept, the FY 2011/12 - FY 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Commuter Rail Program. 10. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO INTERSTATE 215/VAN BUREN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager, provided an overview of the funding allocations for the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project, highlighting the following items: • Projects — contracts awarded and receiving savings; and • A map depicting the donor projects and recipient projects. Commissioner John Benoit asked if the funding would revert back regionally if the bonds are sold to cover the funding shortfall. Tanya Love provided clarification on the types of funding sources and which funds will be reimbursed. Anne Mayer stated that primarily due to stimulus funding availability, the Commission is able to utilize available funds and reallocate left over bid savings to other shovel -ready projects regardless of the project's geographic location. She briefly discussed the formula distribution for State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). However, with stimulus funds, staff is not applying a geographic return to source due to the kinds of bid saving being experienced. She stated the Commission has kept all projects moving forward, with the exception of the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle lanes project, by utilizing these principals. Commissioner Bob Buster discussed the regional significance of the Van Buren Boulevard interchange and the future development to the Meridian Business Park area. He stated any inequities that occur due to reallocating funds will be remembered and gratitude will be returned. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 8 Commissioner Marion Ashley strongly concurred with Commissioner Buster's comments regarding the importance of the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange. In response to Commissioner Adam Rush's question regarding rolling over bid savings to projects regardless of geographic location and formula distribution, Anne Mayer replied the Commission always uses formula distribution percentages for the STIP. She stated an analysis was prepared by staff of federal formula funds, which indicated approximately the same distribution between Eastern and Western Riverside County as the STIP formula. However, it would be difficult to achieve a balance for stimulus funds as it was a one- time funding source. Commissioner Mary Craton discussed the importance of having the opportunity to reallocate and reprogram funds to keep projects moving forward and expressed support for the staff recommendation. Commissioner Glenn Miller stated he understands the philosophy behind the reallocation of stimulus funds. He then discussed the importance of the Jefferson Street overpass project and expressed that when the city of Indio comes forward with this unfunded project, it should receive the same consideration as these interchange projects. Anne Mayer stated $10 million comes from the Measure A Economic Development funds is a Western Riverside County program so these funds are only spent in Western Riverside County. The other $10 million from federal formula funds could be subject to geographic distribution at a future time. M/S/C (Ashley/Craton) to: 1) Allocate $7,589,337 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) federal funds from unallocated grade separation funding, and reprogram $2,410,663 in STP project savings from the I-10/Date Palm Drive interchange to the county of Riverside (County) to complete a funding shortfall for the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project; 2) Replace unobligated STP grade separation funding with federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; 3) Reallocate $10 million in Measure A Economic Development funds from the Jurupa Road grade separation project to the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project to front unallocated Transportation Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) funds; • • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 9 4) Approve Agreement No. 08-31-124-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 08-31-124-00, with the County to reflect the $10 million of additional Measure A funding from the Jurupa Road grade separation for the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project; 5) Approve Agreement No. 11-67-130-00 with the County for repayment of the fronted TCIF funds, and that the Commission receive priority for repayment in the event there are project savings on the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange; and 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements on behalf of the Commission. No: Hanson and Miller 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 8N. FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Buster asked about the effectiveness of the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program. Commissioner Bob Magee assured Commissioner Buster the SB 821 program is extremely effective and discussed the importance of this program. Anne Mayer suggested staff can evaluate the existing SB 821 program to determine opportunities for legislative changes to receive additional funding or to ensure the effectiveness of the program. In response to Commissioner Buster's question, Anne Mayer confirmed these funds are a net addition to the funding being received. M/S/C (Buster/Magee) to: 1) Approve the FY 2011/12 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program recommended funding of $1,094,143; and 2) Authorize staff to fund unfunded projects in rank order through the 70`h percentile using project savings and returned allocations. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 10 80. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Commissioner Buster highlighted the SB 862 (Lowenthal) concept to deal with goods movement and asked about the structure moving forward for representation that could be connected to funding sources. Anne Mayer expressed appreciation for the efforts of Senator Lowenthal to keep this topic at the forefront of discussion. She provided an update on the status of SB 862 and other bills pertaining to goods movement. She stated the container fee discussions are difficult given the economic downturn, but with SB 862 and the other related bills, these discussions can commence. She explained this is an area of high priority and staff will remain engaged so there will eventually be an effective way of dealing with goods movement in Southern California to ensure the Inland Empire's needs are addressed. Commissioner Buster suggested conducting meetings with elected officials to refresh this issue. He then discussed the importance of funding strategies and expressed support for SB 867 (Padilla) and S. 826 (Feinstein) to mitigate and get ahead of the Commission's needs for infrastructure and conservation. Commissioner Rush concurred with the recommended position on SB 862, however, he expressed concern that the appointee distribution for this governing board seems to be centric to Los Angeles and Orange Counties. He asked if the Commission can initiate discussions to shift more representation for Riverside County. Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, replied it is understood that Senator Lowenthal will open a form of outreach of stakeholders to discuss it, which will provide an opportunity to address this concern. In response to Commissioner Rush's question regarding the authority of this governing board, Aaron Hake replied the purpose of this governing board will be to oversee spending and implementation of projects. Anne Mayer explained the importance of the composition, noting Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties each have two votes. Each of these counties deal with congestion issues as a result of movement on goods, grade separation needs and programs, and air quality issues. • • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 11 M/S/C (Buster/Spiegel) to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) AB 1229 (Feuer) - Support; b) SB 545 (Anderson) - Monitor; c) SB 862 (Lowenthal) - Monitor; d) SB 867 (Padilla) - Monitor; e) S. 826 (Feinstein) - Support; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to modify or communicate changes, as necessary, on bill position on pending legislation that are consistent with the Commission's approved legislative platform. 8P. BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS INITIATIVE Commissioner Buster expressed that endorsing the Breaking Down Barriers report to accelerate federal programs and project delivery is an ambitious effort. At Commissioner Buster's request, Aaron Hake discussed the chances for positive change, how the Commissioners can be involved, and the elements that would benefit Riverside County. Commissioner Terry Henderson briefed the Commission on the discussion at the Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee regarding the Breaking Down Barriers report. She expressed her enthusiastic support and encouraged the Commissioners to keep it as a reference. M/S/C (Buster/Spiegel) to: 1) Enthusiastically endorse Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA's) Breaking Down Barriers report; 2) Direct staff to actively engage in advocacy efforts to legislate the recommendations from the report; and 3) Adopt a support position on any legislative proposal that implements the recommendations from the report. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 12 8Q. TRANSPORTATION FINANCE LEGISLATION Anne Mayer stated Assembly Joint Resolution 4, the resolution supporting a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP) was approved at the Senate Committee and is moving to the Senate Floor on June 1 1 . M/S/C (Buster/Stone) to: 1) Adopt as a policy principle that expansion and enhancement of existing credit assistance programs such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) is preferred over the creation of a national infrastructure bank; 2) Adopt a support if amended position on H.R. 1123 (Richardson); and 3) Adopt proposed amendments to H.R. 1123 as principles for any future legislation relating to the TIFIA program. 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 12A. Commissioner Henderson expressed appreciation to staff for the Commission's FY 2011/12 Budget. 12B. Commissioner Karen Spiegel announced the SR -91 CIP public hearing is being held on Thursday, June 9, at the Corona Civic Center. 12C. Commissioner Roger Berg announced the opening of the Centennial Memorial Bridge, a major part of the Potrero Boulevard bypass, and expressed gratitude to Caltrans for its assistance. 12D. Chair Pettis announced the week of June 13, Commissioners Busch, Roberts, and himself will travel to the APTA Rail Conference to continue their work on expanding rail service in Riverside County. 12E. Anne Mayer announced the 1-215 Central project was nominated in Tier 2 to utilize the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account funds pending approval by the California Transportation Commission on June 22. At this time, Commissioners Adams, Buster, Hanson, Hines, Magee, and Miller left the meeting. • • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 Page 13 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) Case No. RIC 532489 There was no announcement from the Closed Session item. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 13, 2011, in the Board Room, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County Transit Services Funding Allocation for Fiscal Year 2011/12 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP); 2) Approve the FY 2011/12 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 531 1 POP for Riverside County; 3) Approve the FY 2011/12 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit; 4) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-01 1, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds". BACKGROUND INFORMATION:: Through the annual Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process, transit operating and capital subsidies consisting of federal, state, and local revenues are allocated to eight transit operators providing public transportation in Riverside County. At its June 8 meeting, the Commission approved the FY 2011/12 — FY 2013/14 SRTPs in concept for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, the Commission's Commuter Rail Program, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). The SRTPs identify each agency's operating and capital needs, funding sources, consolidated financial plan, and provide the framework required to comply with federal regulations, the Transportation Development Act (TDA), state law, and Commission -adopted guidelines and policies. The annual SRTP updates provide a three-year outlook for service improvements, planning activities, and capital programs. As the transportation planning agency, the Commission is responsible for allocation of transit funds, performance monitoring, and operator oversight. Agenda Item 6 1 The approved SRTPs provide the basis for the Commission's oversight activities to help establish system policy, determine appropriate service goals, and provide management with the necessary information to efficiently operate bus and rail services in the county. Primary guidance for the Commission is to use capital and operating funds in a manner that balances the need to be effective and efficient with the need to provide high quality service. In January 2011, the Commission received information on the FY 2011/12 revenue projections, which indicated an increase of approximately 8 percent in both LTF and in Measure A funding compared to the FY 2010/11 original estimates. Additionally, in June 2010, the county received $12.8 million through the fuel tax swap relief package to cover the lost STA funding in FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11. In January 2011, the California State Controller's office also released the STA preliminary allocation estimates for the region for FY 2011/12 signifying the return of STA funding for transit. These recent increases in transit revenues provided a substantial capital revenue stream allowing the public operators to start implementing the planned capital procurements that have been limited or placed on hold for the last two years. SRTP Financial and Ridership Overview Based on submitted SRTPs for FY 2011/12, it is estimated that $212 million in total funding is required to support the operating and capital requests for the provision of Riverside County transit services. The following table provides an overview of the total operating and capital costs together with projected ridership levels by apportionment area. Table 1 - FY 2011/12 Operating, Capital and Ridership Projections Expense Type Western Riverside Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Bus Rail Operating Capital $ 61,910,350 26,714,305 $ 16,789,900 35,556,255 $ 22,177,354 14,351,473 $ 960,322 665,297 $ 101,837,926 77,287,330 Total (Operating & Capital) $ 88,624,655 $ 52,346,155 $ 36,528,827 $1,625,619 $ 179,125,256 Leverage of Commuter Rail Funds* $ 32,703,100 $ 32,703,100 GRAND TOTAL $ 88,624,655 $ 85,049,255 $ 36,528,827 $1,625,619 $ 211,828,356 FY 2011/12 Projected Ridership 8,763,487 3,046,910 4,108,203 42,812 15,961,412 * LA Metro, OCTA & SANBAG's share and passenger fare re\enues for Commuter Rail expenses Agenda Item 6 • • • 2 • • • The overall economic climate remained constrained, consequently impacting continued growth in ridership. Attachment 4 shows the funding plan for FY 2011/12, which is projected to generate approximately 16 million in ridership, slightly 2 percent higher than the FY 2010/11 estimated ridership. Funding levels for next year's transit operations reflect a systemwide increase of 12 percent in total operating expenses and a significant jump of 122 percent in capital expenditures due to the implementation of major vehicle purchases funded with a combination of state, local and federal sources as well as with available fund reserves. FY 2011/12 Operating and Capital Costs To implement the SRTPs for FY 2011/12, the request is to utilize approximately $102 million for operating and $77 million for capital in addition to the $32.7 million share from Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to leverage the Commuter Rail Program. The chart below provides an overview of the operating and capital costs by funding source required to provide transit services in Riverside County. RIVERSIDE COUNTY: FY 2011/12 OPERATING and CAPITAL COSTS TDA (LTF & STA Funds), $73,038,658 , 34% Carry Over Funds (STA/LTF/5307/5309/TU M F/ Prop 1B/Sec5316), $6,567,754, 3% Add'tl Rail Operating Subsidy paid by SANBAG, OCTA & LA Metro, $18,027,800 , 8% Agenda Item 6 Other Revenues, $3,562,274, 2% Passenger Fares, $34,502,771 , 16% Sec 5316 & 5317, $1,194,717, 1% Measure A, $11,757,370 , 6% ._Federal Formula Funds (Sec 5307 & 5311), $24,384,042 , 12% Federal -Discretionary Funds (Sec 5309), $25,208,000, 12% Prop 1B (Cap+Security), $13,584,970 , 6% J 3 Of the $212 million operating and capital costs identified in the chart, approximately $63 million (30 percent) is derived from: • Passenger fares ($34.5 million); • Commuter rail member agencies' revenue share ($18 million); • Carryover funds — LTF/STA/Proposition 1 B153071530915316/TUMF ($6.6 million); and • Miscellaneous other revenues — bus shelter advertising, general fund contributions, Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) revenue, alternate fuel rebates, Metrolink transfer fares, SCRRA pass - through funds for security guards, pass -through funds from Commuter Assistance for the Perris Station Transit Center, CNG sales, CaIPERS reimbursement, federal excise tax credit, and interest income ($3.6 million). The remaining balance of approximately $149 million (70 percent) consists of federal, state, and local funds, including Proposition 1B funding, that are allocated through Commission action. Transportation Development Act Funding The TDA provides two funding sources: LTF and STA for transit capital, operations, and planning. The LTF funds are derived from quarter cent of the state retail sales tax collected in each county. The State Board of Equalization returns the sales tax revenues to the county of Riverside where it is held until the Commission provides written allocation instructions for disbursement. It is estimated that LTF revenue for transit services for FY 2011/12 will be $52,784,515, reflecting an 8 percent increase compared to the original projected amount for FY 2010/11, and is consistent with the revenue projection provided at the January 2011 Commission meeting. The STA funds are a portion of fuel sales tax revenues that are appropriated by the state legislature to the state public transportation account for transit purposes. These funds are allocated to the region based on share of population and share of fare revenues generated in each area during the prior fiscal year. In March 2009, the STA funding for transit was completely eliminated by the state; however, through the fuel tax swap legislation signed into law by the Governor in March 2010, Riverside County received about $12.8 million of the $400 million allocation for FYs 2009/10 and 2010/11. The legislative agreement is also expected to dedicate the diesel sales tax revenue stream to the Public Transportation Account on an ongoing basis, allowing the establishment of an estimated $350 million annual STA program for the state. There is approximately $18 million in STA unallocated reserve funds projected at the end of FY 2010/11. Additional revenues of $9.5 million are anticipated in FY 2011/12 for a total available amount of $27.5 million. About $8 million of this fund balance will be utilized by Riverside County operators for various capital projects in FY 2011/12. Prior to approving the Agenda Item 6 • • • 4 • • • STA allocations, the Commission must adopt the attached resolution as specified in the TDA statutes and California Code of Regulations. To ensure efficient use of existing capital funds, the Commission also adopted revised policies in March 2010, requiring all operators to spend down existing capital balances prior to requesting additional funds. In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF and/or STA funds, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the FY 2011/12 SRTPs. The requested allocations are consistent with the approved SRTPs, and the funds are explicitly for the projects stated in the approved plans. The TDA allocations for FY 2011/12 requested by each operator are outlined in Attachment 3. Proposition 1B Funding Approved by California voters in November 2006, Proposition 1B authorizes the sale of $20 billion in state general obligation bonds for transportation purposes. Sale of the bonds is subject to annual appropriations in the state budget and is expected to be spread across several fiscal years. Bond proceeds are to fund various transportation programs, including the Proposition 1B Public Transportation, Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement (Capital) program administered by Caltrans and the California Transit Security grant program managed by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). For FY 2010/11, Riverside County was appropriated approximately $1.8 million in Proposition 1B Security funds and about $44.6 million in Proposition 1B Capital funds to cover a three-year spending plan for FY 2010/11 - FY 2012/13. Although each region is guaranteed a share of Proposition 1B funds by formula, these funds will be distributed as bonds are sold. It is unknown when these funds will be available and what the exact amount available will be from year to year. Because of the uncertainty when the funds are distributed, not all transit operators programmed their share of the funds for this coming fiscal year. Outlined below are amounts of Prop 1B funds programmed by agencies for FY 2011/12: Proposition 1B Agency Capital Security City of Corona $ $ 38,448 City of Riverside 475,000 Commuter Rail 1,900,000 350,280 SunLine 9,870,868 394,927 PVVTA 534,079 21,368 Total $ 12,779,947 $ 805,023 Agenda Item 6 5 The Proposition 1B program does not require agencies to provide matching funds. The city of Riverside and PVVTA programmed their Proposition 1B FY 2010/11 capital allocation to purchase replacement vehicles. The Commission's Commuter Rail Program will use $1.9 million toward the engineering and construction of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project, and SunLine will use all its Proposition 1B Capital allocation for three years toward the construction of its administrative building. Approximately $805,000 in Proposition 1B Security funds are programmed by the city of Corona, Commission's Commuter Rail Program, SunLine, and PVVTA for various transit security projects. FY 2011/12 Federal Funds: Sections 5307, 5309, 5311, 5316 and 5317 Section 5307 Formula Funds FTA's Section 5307 funds are allocated by formulas to each of the four urbanized areas (UZA) in Riverside County, namely: • Riverside/San Bernardino; • Hemet/San Jacinto; • Temecula/Murrieta; and • Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs. Attachment 2 is the proposed Section 5307 POP for Riverside County. The Commission must develop and approve a POP for each UZA and conduct a public hearing prior to an operator submitting its Section 5307 grant application to FTA. If the draft POP is not amended through the public hearing process, the POP will become final as presented and will be included in an approved RTIP, which is subsequently forwarded to the Southern California Association of Governments for review and processing. The Section 5307 requested funds by operator are shown below: FY 2011/12 Section 5307 Requested Funds Agency Amount City of Riverside $ 674,250 RTA 18,298,628 Commuter Rail 1 ,256,000 SunLine 3,464,390 Total $ 23,693,268 After a series of short-term continuing resolutions, the FTA released the final apportionment notice in May 201 1, announcing the availability of federal funding for FY 2010/11. The actual Section 5307 apportionments for FY 2011/12 will not be known until later this calendar year when final appropriations are made by Congress. The POP was developed at the highest anticipated funding amount to Agenda Item 6 • • • 6 • • • allow the operators to proceed with their grant applications and to avoid delays associated with program amendments should the actual apportionments come in lower than estimated. Any excess funds will be carried over to the subsequent fiscal year and will be made available to cover future projects. Section 5309 Discretionary Funds — Bus and Small Starts FTA Section 5309 Bus funds are earmarked by Congress and are designated for public transit operators for capital projects such as replacement or expansion of buses or improvement of bus facilities. FTA Section 5309 Small Starts are used for building new rail, bus rapid transit, or extensions to existing systems. For FY 2011/12, the Commission's Commuter Rail Program and the city of Corona will be programming Section 5309 funds that were previously awarded last year. The Commission's Commuter Rail Program's Section 5309 earmark will be used toward engineering and construction of the PVL project while the city of Corona will be using its Section 5309 funds for procurement of fixed route buses. The projects must be included in an approved RTIP before the operators can access these funds. FY 2010/11 Section 5309 Earmarks Agency Amount City of Corona $ 208,000 Commission's Commuter Rail 25,000,000 Total $ 25,208,000 Section 5311 Funds The FTA Section 5311 program administered by Caltrans is designed to provide financial assistance to eligible local public transportation providers in rural areas and communities with a population of less than 50,000. The majority of funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula. Any remaining funds are awarded in a statewide discretionary program by Caltrans for rural capital projects and intercity bus programs. The financial plan for this year's program assumes the same funding level as FY 2010/11 for transit operations since the actual apportionments will not be known until the final appropriations are released. By programming the same level of funding, the operators will be able to apply for maximum funding and avoid delays to amend their programs. The program allocates $690,774 in formula funds for Riverside County, of which 61.7 percent will be allocated to RTA and 38.3 percent, for SunLine. As in previous years, both RTA and SunLine identified the use of Section 5311 formula funds for operating. The 61.7 percent/38.3 percent formula was approved by the Commission in 1987, and was based on the level of service each agency operated in the non-UZA of the county. The Commission must develop and approve a Section 5311 POP before grants are approved. Agenda Item 6 7 FY 2011/12 Section 5311 Requested Funds Agency Amount % Allocation RTA $ 426,208 61.7% SunLine 264,566 38.3% Total $ 690,774 100.0% Section 5316 and 5317 Formula Funds Authorized under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), two recent federal programs, namely Section 5316 - Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and Section 5317 - New Freedom (NF), were established to meet the transportation needs of the low- income population, welfare recipients, and persons with disabilities. All projects funded under this program must be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation planning process. RTA, SunLine, and PVVTA were awarded federal FY 2008/09 and 2009/10 JARC and NF funding in April 2011. These agencies are programming these funds for specialized transit operations for FY 2011/12 and FY 2012/13. Funding allotments for FY 2011/12 are as follows: Agency Section 5316(JARC) Section 5317(NF) RTA $ 815,065 $ 103,290 SunLine 119,057 101,475 PVVTA 38,620 17,210 Total $ 972,742 $ 221,975 These funds will be used to cover expenses for RTA's Commuter Link 212 and 217, extended fixed route services and travel training; SunLine's commuter service to Banning and taxi voucher program; and PVVTA's mobility management program. Summary Staff recommendation is to approve the TDA and FTA funds as presented. Any modifications in farebox revenues, federal grants, Measure A funding or carryover funds may require operators to revise their services to operate within the available funding. Agenda Item 6 • • • 8 • • • Fiscal Impact The funding allocations are based on the revenue estimates developed for the FY 2011/12 Commission budget. The budget adopted at the June 8 Commission meeting included $54.83 million in LTF transit operating expenditures, $10.375 million in LTF transit capital expenditures, and $20.3 million in STA capital expenditures. These budgeted expenditures, which include use of prior year capital allocations, are expected to be funded by FY 2011/12 revenues, as well as available fund balances. Based on these recommended allocations, no budget adjustments are required. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $65,053,515 (LTF) $7,985,143 (STA) Source of Funds: TDA: LTF and STA Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE Western County Bus Western County Bus 601 62 86101 P2210 $ 33,172,582 601 62 86102 P2210 $ 10,229,520 Western County Rail 241 62 86102 P2201 $5,096,158 Coachella Valley 241 62 86102 P2202 $2,779,135 Palo Verde Valley 601 62 86101 P2213 $ 10,584,500 Coachella Valley 241 62 86102 P2203 $ 109,850 601 62 86101 P2211 $ 10,258,596 Palo Verde Valley 601 62 86101 P2212 $ 808,317 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \I-QuAiaai ,� Date: 06/15/11 Attachments: 1) 2) 3) 4) Resolution No. 1 1-01 1 Section 5307 Program of Projects TDA Spreadsheets (LTF and STA) FY 2011/12 and FY 2010/11 Operating and Capital Requests and Ridership Projections Agenda Item 6 9 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 1 1 -01 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Federal Transit Act; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's al►ocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to ,enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license; and WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance with Section 18081.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code Section 99251. 10 ATTACHMENT 1 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 2011/12 as detailed in Attachment 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July, 201 1. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2011/12 URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO Total Apportionment (Projection based on FYI 0-11 Fed Regrsler & mlercounty Allocation) Bus Rail Total Apportionment (Est based on FYI 0-11 funds released 5/20/11) $ 10,500,595 $ 4,774,122 $ 15,274,717 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) - Carryover 5,962,253 1,809,635 7,771,888 Total Funds Available 16,462,848 6,583,757 23,046,605 Less Current Requests 11,122,878 1,256,000 12,378,878 Balance (Projected) $ 5,339,970 $ 5,327,757 $ 10,667,727 Sub Area Allocation Riverside, City of $ 674,250 Riverside Transit Agency 10,448,628 RCTC's Commuter Rail 1,256,000 TOTAL $ 12,378,878 NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Riverside, City of 1) Preventive Maintenance 2) 4 Vehicle Replacement ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 4 FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED TOTAL AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT TOTAL: City of Riverside $ 350,000 $ 280,000 Capital/Operating SCAG 475,000 394,250 Capital SCAG 825,000 $ 674,250 Riverside Transit Agency 3) Capitalized Preventive Maintenance $ 9,187,500 $ 4,350,000 Capital/Operating SCAG 4) Capital Cost of Contracting 5,312,500 1,250,000 Capital SCAG 5) Revenue Vehicles - (3) Commuterlink E-Lo's 524,794 419,835 Capital SCAG 6) Revenue Vehicles - (6) COFR E-Lo's 1,052,000 841,600 Capital SCAG 7) Revenue Vehicles - (17) DAR Type II's 1,318,451 1,094,314 Capital SCAG 8) Non -Revenue Vehicles - (9) Support Vehicles 135,791 108,633 Capital SCAG 9) Non -Revenue Vehicles - (3) S&Z Trucks 161,625 129,300 Capital SCAG 10) Capital Maintenance Spares 1,678,372 1,342,698 Capital SCAG 11) Capitalized Tire Lease 243,034 194,427 Capital SCAG 12) Facility Maintenance 897,276 717,821 Capital SCAG TOTAL: Riverside Transit Agency $ 20,511,343 $ 10,448,628 RCTC's Commuter Rail 13) SCRRA Rehab/Renovation - FY 12 RCTC's share $ 1,256,000 $ 1,256,000 Capital SCAG TOTAL: RCTC Rail $ 1,256,000 $ 1,256,000 Approved: 7/13/2011 (Pending) GRAND TOTAL $ 22,592,343 $ 12,378,878 V:WClemente\5307\POP\Riv-San Bernardino1112SCAG.xls 12 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2011/12 URBANIZED AREA: HEMET/SAN JACINTO RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $ 1,889,958 Carryover (estimate) 1,312,049 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) - Total Funds Available 3,202,007 Less Current Requests 1,850,000 Balance (Projected) $ 1,352,007 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Operating Assistance $ 26,385,883 $ 1,850,000 Operating Caltrans TOTAL: $ 26,385,883 $ 1,850,000 Approved: 7/13/11 (pending) V:\JClemente\5307\POP\Hemet - San Jacinto UZA11-12.xls • • • 13 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 3 of 4 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2011/12 URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS RECIPIENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $ 3,740,863 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) - Carryover (Estimate) 1,826,842 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) - Total Funds Available 5,567,705 Less Current Requests 3,464,390 Balance (Projected) $ 2,103,315 NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Operating Assistance $ 20,210,153 $ 924,804 Operating SCAG 2) Preventive Maintenance 1,967,201 1,250,000 Capital SCAG 3) Bus Rehabilitation 160,000 128,000 Capital SCAG 4) 7 Replacement Paratransit Buses 665,000 100,000 Capital SCAG 5) Transit Enhancement 65,678 35,586 Capital SCAG 6) Facility Improvement 550,000 100,000 Capital SCAG 7) Administrative Building 10,770,868 400,000 Capital SCAG 8) Office Furniture 120,000 96,000 Capital SCAG 9) ITS Project 500,000 200,000 Capital SCAG 10) Transit Planning & Feasibility Studies 450,000 150,000 Capital SCAG 11) Maintenance Tools & Equipment 100,000 80,000 Capital SCAG TOTAL: $ 35,558,900 $ 3,464,390 Approved:7/13/2011 (Pending) V:\JCIemente\5307\POP\Indio-Coachella-P Springs 11-12.xls 14 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 4 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2011/12 URBANIZED AREA: TEMECULA/MURRIETA RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance (Projected) NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS $ 3,187,804 3,165,793 6,353,597 6,000,000 $ 353,597 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Capitalized Preventive Maintenance $ 9,187,500 $ 3,000,000 Capital/Operating SCAG 2) Capital Cost of Contracting 5,312,500 3,000,000 Operating SCAG TOTAL: $ 14,500,000 $ 6,000,000 Approved: 7/13/11 (pending) V:\JClemente\5307\POP\Temecula-Murrietal 1-12.xls • • • 15 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOP MENT ACT FUNDING FY 2011/12 TRANSIT ALLOCATIONS • ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 2 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AGENCY/APPORTIONM ENT AREA ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED TOTAL ESTIMATED NON RECOMMENDED LTF LTF Operating Funds LTF Capital Funds TRANSIT ALLOCATIONS FOR FY OPERATING COSTS CAPITAL COSTS COSTS LTF REVENUES 2011/12 FY 2011/12 FY 2011/12 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona Riverside Special Services Riverside Transit Agency $ 1,260,587 1,402,000 1,964,663 3,179,017 54,104,083 $ 50,000 998,448 950,000 24,715,857 - $ 1,260,587 1,452,000 2,963,111 4,129,017 78,819,940 $ 130,050 192,000 1,391,381 1,566,000 41,943,122 $ 1,130,537 1,260,000 1,571,730 2,563,017 36,876,818 $ 1,130,537 1,260,000 1,571,730 2,563,017 26,647,298 $ - - - - 10,229,520 TOTAL: WESTERN RIVERSIDE - BUS 61,910,350 26,714,305 88,624,655 45,222,553 43,402,102 33,172,582 10,229,520 RCTC's Commuter Rail (Metrolink) 16,789,900 35,556,255 52,346,155 41,761,655 10,584,500 10,584,500 - TOTAL: WESTERN RIVERSIDE - COM MUTER RAIL* 16,789,900 35,556,255 52,346,155 41,761,655 10,584,500 10,584,500 - SunLine Transit Agency 22,177,354 14,351,473 36,528,827 26,270,231 10,258,596 10,258,596 - TO TAL: COACHELLA VALLEY 22,177,354 14,351,473 36,528,827 26,270,231 10,258,596 10,258,596 - Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 960,322 665,297 1,625,619 817,302 808,317 808,317 - TOTA L: PALO VERDE VA LLEY 960,322 665,297 1,625,619 817,302 808,317 808,317 - " Commuter Rail's operating costs are estimated at $49.5 million per Table 4 of SRTP. Of this amo unt, $16,789,900 is RCTC's share of operating costs. • N. FY 2011-12 LTF STA AllocationsALL.xlsx 6/15/2011 16 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2 of 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOP MENT ACT FUNDING FY 2011/12 TRANSIT ALLOCATIONS STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA RECO MMENDED ESTIMATED STA STA TRANSIT ESTIMATED STA ESTIMATED STA CARRY OVER ALLOCATIONS FOR OPERATING COSTS CAPITAL COSTS FUNDS FY 2011/12 City of Banning $ - $ $ - $ City of Beaumont City of Corona Riverside Special Services Riverside Transit Agency TOTAL: WESTERN RIVERSIDE - BUS 50,000 752,000 80,750 7,597,029 8,479,779 3,383,621 3,383,621 50,000 752,000 80,750 4,213,408 5,096,158 RCTC's Commuter Rail (Metrolink) TOTAL: WESTERN RIVERSIDE - COMM UTER RAIL SunLine Transit Agency TOTAL: COACHELLA VALLEY 2,779,135 2,779,135 2,779,135 2,779,135 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 109,850 109,850 TOTAL: PALO VERDE VALLEY 109,850 109,850 COUNTY WIDE TOTAL - $ 11,368,764 $ 3,383,621 $ 7,985,143 • 41k STA Operating Funds FY 2011/12 STA Capital Funds FY 2011/12 50,000 752,000 - 80,750 4,213,408 - 5,096,158 - 2,779135 - 2,779,135 - 109,850 - 109,850 $ - $ 7,985,143 FY 2011-12 LTF STA AllocationsALL ,xlsx 6/15/2011 • • • Comparison of FY 2011/12 & FY 2010/11 Operating & Capital Costs and Ridership Projecti ons • ATTACH MENT 4 AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA OPERATING CAPITAL FY11/12 FY10/11 Incr/Decr City of Banning City of Beaumont $ 1,260,587 1,402,000 $ 1,197,537 1,140,000 5.26% 22 .98 % City of Corona 1,964,663 1,944,737 1.02% Riverside Special Services Riverside Transit Agency 3,179,017 54,104,083 2,747,371 49,966,377 15.71 % 8 .28% Western County: Bus 61,910,350 56,996,022 8 .62% Western County: Rail 16,789,900 11,563,900 45.19% WESTERN COUNTY: TOTAL (Bus & Rail) 78,700,250 68,559,922 14.79% SunLine Transit Agency 22,177,354 21,324,379 4.00% COACHELLA VALLEY: TOTAL 22,177, 354 21,324,379 4.00% FY11/12 FY10/11 % I ncr/Decr $ $ 352,693 -100 .00 % 50,000 269,562 -81.45% 998,448 347,552 187.28% 950,000 1,500,000 -36.67 % 24,715,857 4,652,064 431.29 % 26,714,305 35,556,255 62,270,560 14,351,473 14,351,473 7,121,871 18,410,272 25,532,143 8,909,416 8,909,416 275.10 % 93.13% 143.89 % 61 .08% 61.08% TOTAL COST FY11/12 FY10/11 Incr/Decr $ 1,260,587 $ 1,550,230 -18.68 % 1,452,000 1,409,562 3.01% 2,963,111 2,292,289 29 .26% 4,129,017 4,247,371 -2.79 % 78,819,940 88,624,655 52, 346,155 140,970,810 36,528,827 36,528,827 54,618,441 64,117,893 29, 974,172 94,092,065 30,233,795 30,233,795 44.31% 38.22% 74.64% 49.82% 20 .82% 20.82% RIDERSHIP FY 11/12 (Projection) FY10/11 (Estim ate) I ncr/D ecr 131,834 129,668 1.67% 181,418 166,523 8.94% 212,207 209,071 1.50% 161,110 157,425 2.34% 8,076,918 8,010,108 0.83°/ 8,763,487 8,672,795 1.05% 3,046,910 11,810,397 4,108,203 2,891, 605 11, 564, 400 4,092,916 5.37 % 2.13 % 0.37 % 4,108,203 4,092,916 0.37% Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency PALO VERDE VALLEY: TOTAL 960,322 960,322 829,369 829,369 15.79% 15. 79 TOTAL: ALL AREAS $ 101,837,926 $ 90,713,670 12.26% 665,297 322,005 106 .61 1,625,619 1,151,374 41.19% 42,812 36,083 18.65% 665,297 322,005 106.61 % 1,625,619 1,151,374 41.19% 42,812 36,083 18 .65% $ 77,287,330 $ 34,763,564 122.32% $ 179,125,256 $ 125,477,234 42.76 % 15,961,412 15,693,399 1 .71 % Lev erage of Commuter Rail Funds* FY 11/12 FY 10/11 % I ncr/Decr $ 32,703,100 $ 31,475,500 3.90% To ta l: $ 211,828,356 $ 156,952,734 34 .96 % "Commute r Rail's c osts include RCTC's share of appro ximately $16.8 million plus approximately $32.7 millio n in additio nal operating subsidy from partner agencies ($18,027,800) and Rail farebox revenue ($14,675,300). Note 2: FY 2011/12 total cost includes $6,567,754 in STA/LTF/5309/5316/Prop 1B/TUMF carryo ver funds from previou s year. 18 7/13/2011 Riverside County Transportation Commission FY 2011/12 Funding Allocation for Riverside County Transit Services July 13, 2011 Short Range Transit Plans �. ., . FYs 2011/12 — 2013/14 SRTPs Approved in concept: 6/9/11 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency RCTC Rail Commuter Program 1 7/13/2011 Comparison: LTF, Transit Measure A and STA FYs 2010/11 — 2011/12 Revenues Measure A LTF (Transit) FY 2010/11 $49,101,135 $10,138,083 FY 2011/12 $52,784,515 $10,940,000 $23,398,642 Change +$ 3,683,380 +$ 801,017 + $23,398,642* 8% 8% *Includes: $12,801,951 = Gas Tax Swap Funds (to cover FY 10 & FY 11 lost funds) $10,596,691 = STA estimate for FY 11/12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FY 2011/12 TRANSIT FUNDING REQUEST RCTC FY 2011/12 Funding Request by eight County Transit Operators Commuter Rail Program share from Metrolink Partners FY 2011/12 TOTAL FUNDING SUPPORT FOR RIVERSIDE CO. TRANSIT SERVICES $179.1 million + 32.7 million $211.8 million 2 7/13/2011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY: FY 2011/12 OPERATING and CAPFTAL EXPENDITURES TDA (LTF & STA Funds), $73,038,658 , 34% Carry Over Funds (STA/5309/TUM F/Prop 1B/LTF/Sec 5316), $6,567,754, 3% Add'tl Rail Operating Subsidy paid 6y SANBAG, OCTA & LA Metro, $18,027,800 , 8% Other Revenues, $3,562,274, 2% Passenger Fares, / Sec 5316 & 5317, $34,502,771 , 16% $1,194,717, 1% Measure A, $11,757,370, 6% Federal Formula Funds (Sec 5307 & 5311), $24,384,042 , 12% Federal -Discretionary Funds (Sec 5309), $25,208,000, 12% Prop 18 (Cap+Security), $13,584,970 , 6% Operating and Capital - 1 .9,..,.. Expenditures .•FYs 2008/09 so RCTC 2011 12 ...;.� Amounts in Millions ($) D 0 0 0 0 CO Operating Capital Total Cost ,_ 6;6 184 179 144 31 3 4 -3.396 • a 125 + -4 2v 102 98 95 + 3414 9♦0 • :i22.34 • 77 42.3a 46 + 35 Min fie , , se d , , e de si''� , 3 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2011 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the 2011 State Route 91 Implementation Plan update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2002, AB 1010 (Correa) allowed the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 express lanes franchise from the California Private Transportation Company. The purchase agreement was completed in January 2003, at a cost of $207.5 million. AB 1010 also eliminated the existing non -compete clause in the franchise agreement that prohibited any capacity enhancing improvements from being made to SR -91 until the year 2030. SB 1316 passed in August 2008, authorized the Commission to impose tolls for 50 years on transportation facilities on its portion of SR -91, and authorized toll revenues to be used for constructing and operating toll facilities on SR -91 in Riverside County. The purchase of the 91 express lanes and the elimination of the non -compete clause has allowed much -needed improvements to be planned and implemented within the SR -91 corridor. Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, the Commission, and OCTA have been coordinating these improvements. SB 1316 required creation of a new advisory committee with specific responsibilities appointed by board members from the Commission and OCTA. SB 1316 also required the continuation of annual updates of an implementation plan of SR -91 improvements for the Legislature. As spelled out in the legislation, the 2011 State Route 91 Implementation P/an was completed by OCTA, in consultation with Caltrans, and the Commission, it details proposed projects and completion schedules for transportation improvements to Metrolink, express bus, freeways and interchanges, new east -west highway corridors, and high-speed rail. Attachment: 2011 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Agenda Item 8A 19 I SA 9 CONSULTING &iltiang 20 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I SECTION 1: 2011 STATUS REPORT AND UPDATE 1 SECTION 2: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 8 BY YEAR 2016 9 BY YEAR 2025 16 BY YEAR 2035 20 SECTION 3: COMPLETED PROJECT EXHIBITS 26 SECTION 4: REFERENCES 30 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN j 21 i SECTION 1: 2 ❑ 1 1 • STATUS REPORT AND UPDATE INTRODUCTION Previous law authorized the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to enter into franchise agreements with private companies to construct and operate four demonstration toll road projects in California. This resulted in the development of the 91 Express Lanes facility in Orange County. The four -lane, 10 -mile toll road runs along the median of the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) in northeast Orange County between the Orange/Riverside County Line and the Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55). Since the 91 Express Lanes carried its first vehicle on December 27, 1995, the facility has saved users tens of millions of hours of commuting time. While the 91 Express Lanes facility has improved travel time along the State Route 91 (SR -91) corridor, provisions in the franchise agreement between Caltrans and the private franchisee, the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), prohibited Caltrans and county transportation agencies from adding transportation capacity or operational improvements to the SR -91 corridor from the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) in Riverside County to the Orange/Los Angeles Counties border through the year 2030. Consequently, the public agencies were barred from adding new lanes, improving interchanges, and adding other improvements to decrease congestion on the SR -91 freeway. Recognizing the need to eliminate the non -compete provision of the franchise agreement, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 1010 (Lou Correa) (AB 1010) into law in September 2002, paving the way for much - needed congestion relief for thousands of drivers who use SR -91 to travel between Riverside and Orange Counties each day. The bill allowed the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes franchise and eliminate the existing clause that prohibited any capacity -enhancing improvements from being made to SR -91 until the year 2030. The purchase agreement for the 91 Express Lanes was completed in January 2003, placing the road in public hands at a cost of $207.5 million. With the elimination of the non -compete provision through AB 1010 and the subsequent 91 Express Lanes purchase by the OCTA, Orange County and Riverside County public officials and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 have been coordinating improvement plans for SR -91. Senate Bill 1316 (Lou Correa) (SB 1316) was signed into law in August 2008 as an update to the provisions of AB 1010. SB 1316 authorizes OCTA to transfer its rights and interests in the Riverside County portion of SR -91 toll lanes by assigning them to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and authorizes RCTC to impose tolls for 50 years. SB 1316 also requires OCTA, in consultation with Caltrans and RCTC, to annually issue a plan and a proposed completion schedule for SR -91 improvements from State Route 57 (SR -57) to Interstate 15 (1-15). The previous SR -91 Implementation Plan included a westerly project limit of State Route 55 (SR -55). This plan establishes a program of projects eligible for funding by the use of potential excess toll revenue and other funds. This 2011 SR -91 Implementation Plan (Plan) is the result of the requirement to provide the State Legislature with an annual Implementation Plan for SR -91 improvements and builds on the 2010 report, which was a major update of the previous annual Implementation Plans. This year's update includes projects identified in the Riverside County — Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) as well as other project development efforts and funding programs such as the RCTC 10 -Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan that outlines a number of projects such as the extension of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes from the Orange/Riverside County Line to 1-15, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) that provides a funding source for transportation projects, the extension of the Measure A program that provides funding for transportation projects in Riverside County, and the Renewed Measure M program that provides funding for transportation projects in Orange County. The 2011 Plan includes an overview, identification of issues and needs, time frames for project packages to improve mobility on 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1 22 SR -91, and are listed based on a logical sequence for implementation. Project descriptions include conceptual lane diagrams (as appropriate), cost estimates (in 2011 dollars, or as noted), and discussion of key considerations that need to be addressed in the planning and development of each project. This plan will provide OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans with a framework to implement SR -91 and other related improvements. Future annual plan updates will continue to refine the scope, cost, and schedule of each project included in this version of the plan. SR -91 CORRIDOR CONDITIONS Project Limits The project study limits encompass the segment of SR -91 from west of the junction of SR -57 and SR -91 in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, to east of the junction of SR -91 and 1-15 in the City of Corona in Riverside County. The freeway segment is approximately 20.3 miles long, and includes approximately 12.7 miles within Orange County and approximately 7.6 miles within Riverside County. Traffic Conditions Summary A review of traffic conditions in the Corridor indicates that the existing carrying capacity of the facility is inadequate to accommodate current and future peak demand volumes, and that Level of Service (LOS) F prevails in the peak direction during the entire peak period, where LOS F is defined as the worst freeway operating condition and is defined as a density of more than 45 passenger cars/lane/mile. The results also indicate that there are several physical constraints that generate unacceptable traffic queues. The following list summarizes the deficiencies identified along the SR -91 Corridor: Heavy traffic volumes from 1-15 (North and South) converge with SR -91. The weaving and merging condition is complicated by the close proximity of the Westbound (WB) Main Street off -ramp. High demand from several on -ramps within the eastern segment exacerbates traffic conditions during rush hours. High traffic volumes from Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road contribute to congestion on the mainline. • The Eastern Transportation Corridor (State Route 241) merges with SR -91 causing additional congestion in the EB direction. One of the two EB lanes from State Route 241 (SR -241) is dropped just east of the merge to State Route 91 (SR -91). • Heavy traffic reentering the freeway merges at slow speeds from existing WB and EB truck scales, impacting the general-purpose lanes. • SR -55 merges with SR -91. An EB lane on SR -91 is dropped at Lakeview Avenue and a second EB lane is dropped at Imperial Highway creating a severe merge condition. • WB SR -91 drops a GP lane and a 91 Express Lane to SB SR -55, which contributes to mainline congestion. This drop also occurs on the left-hand side of SR -91 as opposed to the typical right-hand exit. • High demand from Weir Canyon Road, Imperial Highway and Lakeview Avenue. WB traffic entering SR -91 at Lakeview Avenue weaving through three lanes from WB SR -91 to southbound (SB) SR -55 contributes to mainline congestion. PROJECT SUMMARY Many of the projects identified in this 2011 Plan are based on the MIS that was completed in January 2006. The projects are presented based on potential implementation schedules and priorities established in the MIS as well as through subsequent project development. Table 1 summarizes the various projects in the 2011 Plan, and they are outlined below by implementation schedule (see Section 2 for detailed project summaries): The first set of projects is anticipated to be completed by 2016 and include six improvements at a total cost of approximately $1.57 billion. The projects include the Metrolink short-term expansion plan; new travel lanes between SR -55 and SR -241; interchange improvements at SR-71/SR-91; a new WB lane at Tustin Avenue; the Initial SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) that will widen SR -91 by one GP lane in each direction east of the County Line, add collector -distributor (CD) roads and direct south connectors at I-15/SR-91, and extend the 91 Express Lanes to 1-15, and provide system/local interchange improvements; and Express Bus improvements. These projects are in the process of 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2 • 23 • • final design, construction, or procurement and implementation, as noted in the project summaries. Some of these projects may become components of 2035 projects. Three projects for implementation by 2025 include a SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes connector, a significant expansion of Metrolink service, and station improvements and SR -91 widening improvements between SR -57 and SR -55. OCTA, ROTC, and Caltrans have initiated preliminary planning activities for these projects to ensure readiness when local, state, or federal funding becomes available. Preliminary engineering has been initiated for the highway improvement projects. Consequently, there may be opportunities to advance these projects if additional funding is made available. Projects for implementation by 2025 would cost up to approximately $940 million. Projects for 2035 implementation focus on longer - lead time projects and include: a potential new interchange or overcrossing at Fairmont Boulevard; the Ultimate CIP that widens SR -91 by one GP lane in each direction from SR -241 to SR -71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North Connector, extension of Express Lanes on 1-15 and SR -91 improvements east of 1-15; an elevated 4 -lane facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR -241 to 1-15; Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) 4 -lane facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (formerly known as MIS Corridor B); and the Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed Rail. The Fairmont Boulevard interchange project and the other four, multi -billion dollar potential projects require a significant amount of planning, design, and future policy and public input. In some cases, these projects may include previous projects as project components, such that all projects may not be implemented within this project summary. Traffic Analysis For the 2011 Plan, the traffic analysis for major SR -91 capacity projects has been updated from the 2010 Plan. This analysis used the latest freeway operations software Table 1 — SR -91 Implementation Plan Projects Project Project Summary (Implementation Year) No. Cost ($M) By Year 2016 1 Metrolink Short -Term Expansion Plan (2013) 2 Widen SR -91 between SR -55 and SR -241 by Adding a 5th GP Lane in Each Direction (2013) 3 SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements (2015) 4 SR -91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue (2015) 5 Initial CIP: Widen SR -91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction East of County Line, CD Roads and I-15/SR-91 Direct South Connector, Extension of Express Lanes to 1-15 and System/Local Interchange Improvements (2016) 6 Express Bus Improvements Orange County to Riverside County (2016) SUBTOTAL 35.4 71.0 120.2 38.3 1,300 9.5 1,574 By Year 2025 SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector (2017) Metrolink Service and Station Improvements (2020) SR -91 between SR -57 and SR -55 (2025) SUBTOTAL 180 335 425 940 By 2035 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements (Post -2025) 76.8 Ultimate CIP: Widen SR 91 by One GP Lane in Each TBD Direction from SR -241 to SR -71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North Connector, Extension of Express Lanes on 1-15 and SR - 91, Improvements East of 1-15 (Post 2025) Elevated 4 -Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR -241 to I-15 (TBD) Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) 4 -Lane Facility SR-241/SR-133 to 115/Cajalco Road (TBD) Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed ( Post -2030) SUBTOTAL 8,855 TBD 11,650+ model available from UC Berkeley and traffic data calibrated to reflect new traffic patterns since the 2010 Plan. This freeway operations model provides a better depiction of actual travel delays experienced by motorists compared to traditional travel demand models. The model can be used to analyze freeway bottlenecks sometimes neglected in traditional travel demand models. This approach is especially important given high SR -91 traffic volumes and the potential for relatively few vehicles to significantly slow down traffic. For example, a minor freeway merging area can cause many vehicles to slow, cascading delay through the traffic stream, and suddenly both speed and volume rapidly decrease for major segments of the freeway. 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 3 24 The operations analysis quantified travel time savings for WB morning and EB afternoon conditions for the following major capacity enhancing projects: ❖ New WB/EB lanes from SR -55 to SR -241 by 2013 (Project 2). • New WB/EB lanes from SR -71 to 1-15 by 2016 (Initial CIP, Project 5). • SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes connector with lanes to Coal Canyon on SR -91 by 2017 (Project 7). • EB lane between SR -57 and SR -55 by 2023 (Project 9). • New WB/EB lanes, various segments, from SR -241 to 1-15 by Post -2025 (Ultimate CIP, Project 11). New capacity provided by Corridor A and Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) by 2035 (Projects 12 and 13). The WB morning traffic analysis results indicate that the year 2016 forecasts, bottlenecks are shown at the Orange -Riverside County line and at the SR -55 interchange. A minor bottleneck is shown at the SR -241. The main bottlenecks in Riverside County have decreased because of the completion of proposed projects, though some congestion is still forecasted. In the year 2025 forecast, WB bottlenecks are at Main Street, the Orange - Riverside County Line, at the SR -241 interchange, and at the SR -55 interchange. Assuming Corridors A and ICE are not constructed by the year 2035, bottlenecks appear at Main Street, just east of the SR -71 interchange, at the Orange -Riverside County Line, at the SR -241 interchange, and at the SR -55 interchange. For the year 2035, the construction of Corridors A and ICE is forecast to notably improve WB operations along the SR -91 freeway. A bottleneck is shown at the SR -55 interchange. The EB evening traffic analysis indicates that the year 2016 forecasts, bottlenecks are shown shortly before the SR -55 and at the Orange -Riverside County line. The main bottlenecks and queuing in Riverside County have largely decreased because of the completion of proposed projects, though some congestion is still forecasted. It is possible for this congestion to develop into new bottlenecks due to future growth of traffic volumes. In the year 2025 forecast, EB bottlenecks are still shown west of the SR -55 and at the Orange -Riverside County Line. Due to traffic growth, a bottleneck begins to reappear at Lincoln Avenue. Assuming Corridors A and ICE are not constructed by the year 2035, bottlenecks appear at SR - 55, at the SR -241 interchange, and at Lincoln Avenue. For the year 2035, the construction of Corridors A and ICE is forecast to notably improve EB operations along the SR - 91 freeway. A bottleneck is shown before the SR -55, and some minor congestion is shown at the SR -241 and in short stretches within Riverside County. The current design of the SR-55/SR-91 interchange limits the ability to move traffic into north and central Orange County via SR -55, and significant future vehicle delays may result without major interchange improvements and downstream capacity increases or diversion to other corridors. The introduction of Corridors A and ICE by 2035 offers the potential capacity to manage future SR -91 traffic demand in both directions. While both of these corridors are still concepts, they provide substantial relief to EB and WB traffic congestion in the future. Further feasibility studies will determine if one or both concepts move forward in the project development process. The charts below describe the travel time benefits by year including these various project concepts. 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 • 25 • • Figure 1-1— Mainline Westbound SR -91 from 1-15 to SR -57 A.M. Peak Hour Average Travel Time 100 80 60 40 20 0 _. Mainline Westbound SR -91 from 1-15 to SR -57 AM Peak Hour Average Travel Time (in Minutes) Existing (2010) 2016 Orange County 2025 2035 2035 A&B Riverside County Figure 1-2 — Mainline Eastbound SR -91 from SR -57 to 1-15 P.M. Peak Hour Average Travel Time 100 80 60 40 20 Mainline Eastbound SR -91 from SR -57 to 1-15 PM Peak Hour Average Travel Time (in Minutes) Existing (2010) 2016 Orange County 2021 Riverside County 2035 /880 PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS Much progress has been made since the initial 2003 SR -91 Implementation Plan was approved. The 2011 Plan includes select completed project exhibits as a historical reference, see Section 3. Recently Completed Construction/Improvement Projects As of June 2011, the following physical improvements have been constructed/implemented: Repave and seal pavement surfaces, restripe, and replace raised channelizers on the 91 Express Lanes. 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5 26 • EB SR -91 restripe and median barrier reconstruction project that removed the CHP enforcement area and extended the EB auxiliary lane from SR -71 to the Serfas Club Drive off -ramp. WB auxiliary lane extension between the County Line and SR -241. This project eliminated the lane drop at the 91 Express Lanes and extended the existing auxiliary lane from the County Line to SR -241 in the westbound direction. This improvement minimized the traffic delays at the lane drop area, resulting in improved vehicle progression. • WB restripe project extended the auxiliary lane between SR -71 and the County Line resulting in a new continuous auxiliary lane between SR -71 & SR -241. Express Bus improvements are implemented for the Galleria at Tyler to South Coast Metro route. • Safety Improvements at the Truck Scales. Existing shoulders were improved, lanes were re -striped, illumination improved, and signage was modified into and out of the EB facilities. • Green River Road overcrossing replacement (See Section 3). • Metrolink parking structure at the North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station (See Section 3). • EB SR -91 lane addition from SR -241 to SR -71 (See Section 3). These projects provide enhanced freeway capacity and improved mobility for one of the most congested segments of the freeway. The recently completed EB SR -91 lane addition project from SR -241 to SR -71 (See Section 3) has greatly enhanced highway operations with the addition of EB capacity from SR -241 to SR -71. This accounts for some of the improvement in existing EB p.m. peak hour travel time from approximately 70+ minutes in 2010 to approximately 50 minutes as shown in Figure 1-2. In addition, there are two projects that are currently in the project development or environmental phase that have a direct impact upon SR -91 widening projects. The first is the $2 billion U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Santa Ana River Mainstem (SARM) improvement project that provides flood protection from the recently improved Prado Dam (near SR -71) to the Pacific Ocean. As part of the Corps' project, existing riverbanks are being improved due to the increased capacity of the Prado Dam outlet works, which can now release up to 30,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) compared to the previous facility capacity of 10,000 cfs. The only remaining segment of the Santa Ana River to be improved is Reach 9 Phase 2A, which includes areas along SR -91 from just east of the Coal Canyon Wildlife Corridor Crossing to SR -71. SR -91 project design teams have coordinated with the Corps, Caltrans, and other federal, regional, and local agencies in order to accommodate future SR -91 improvements by the Corps bank protection project within Reach 9 by relocating the Santa Ana River. This will greatly enhance the ability of Caltrans and other regional transportation agencies to implement many of the SR -91 improvement projects listed herein. The Corps SARM Reach 9 improvements are under construction with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) "stimulus" funding and construction is anticipated to start in November 2011 be completed by June 2012. The other project with a direct impact to SR -91 is the $100 million Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) sewer trunk line relocation. The existing SARI line is within the Santa Ana River floodplain and is in jeopardy of failure due to scour from the potential increased flood releases by the aforementioned Corps project. In order to relocate the proposed 48 -inch diameter SARI line outside of the floodplain, which is immediately adjacent to SR -91, highway R/W was relinquished to the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) for location of the SARI line. SR -91 project teams have coordinated with the OCFCD, Caltrans, and other federal, regional, and local agencies in order to accommodate planned SR -91 improvements within the remaining State R/W subsequent to relinquishment. This project completed the preliminary engineering phase and is scheduled to complete construction by summer 2012. Recently Completed PSR's and other Reports In addition to the physical improvements in the corridor, there are several reports and PSR's that are completed, in draft form, or anticipated to be approved that identify improvements that will provide improved mobility. The reports and PSR's include (also see Section 4): • MIS — Final Project Report: Locally Preferred Strategy Report (January 2006). • Project Study Report "On Route 91 from State Route 241 in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County" (October 2006). Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan (November 2006). 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6 • 27 • • •• Project Study Report for SR-71/SR-91 Interchange (December 2006). • RCTC 10 -Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan (December 2006). • 91 Express Lanes Extension and State Route 241 Connector Feasibility Study (March 2009). • Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for Eastbound SR -91 lane addition from SR -241 to SR -71 (May 2009). • SR -91 Feasibility Study from SR -57 to SR -55 (June 2009). • SR-91/Fairmont Boulevard Feasibility Study (December 2009). :• Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Orange County SR -91 Corridor Final Report (August 2010). • PS&E "On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County" (April 2011). Renewed Measure M Early Action Plan, approved August 2007 and subsequently renamed as the Capital Action Plan (April 2011). Updates from the 2010 SR -91 Implementation Plan In addition, to the improvements and progress noted above, the following items that were included in the 2010 SR -91 Implementation Plan have been modified or dropped for the 2011 Plan update: • The EB lane addition project improvements from SR -241 to SR -71 have been completed and the project is moved to Section 3 of the Plan. • The 2013 horizon year has been updated to 2016 to capture projects to be implemented by 2016. • The 2023 horizon year has been updated to 2025 to capture projects to be implemented by 2025. • The Post -2025/2030 horizon year has been updated to 2035 to capture projects to be implemented by 2035. Various project costs and schedules have been updated from the 2010 Plan based on continued project development. 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7 28 • • SECTION2: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OVERVIEW The 2011 Plan describes projects, implementation schedules, key consideration, benefits, and costs (in 2011 dollars, or as noted) for major projects through 2035. Most of the projects identified in this Implementation Plan are based on the MIS that was completed in January 2006. The projects are presented based on potential implementation schedules and priorities established in the MIS. The schedules for implementation of the packages of projects include 2016, 2025, and 2035. The 2016 projects are capable of being implemented through the project development process with minimal to moderate environmental constraints. Some of the longer -range projects for 2025 and 2035 require more significant planning and environmental assessment prior to design. Each of the project improvements includes an estimate of project schedules. It is important to note that implementing various time saving measures, such as design -build or contractor incentives for early completion, may potentially reduce project schedules. The implementation phases are defined as follows: •:• Conceptual Engineering = Pre -Project Study Report (Pre-PSR) — Conceptual planning and engineering for project scoping and feasibility prior to initiating the PSR phase. Preliminary Engineering = Project Study Report (PSR) — Conceptual planning and engineering phase that allows for programming of funds. Environmental = Project Report/Environmental Documentation (PRIED) — The detailed concept design that provides environmental clearance for the project and programs for final design and right of way acquisition. The duration for this phase is typically 2-3 years. • Design = Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) — Provide detailed design to contractors for construction bidding and implementation. • Construction = The project has completed construction and will provide congestion relief to motorists. The intent of these implementation plan project packages is to provide an action list for OCTA, RCTC and Caltrans to pursue in the project development process or for initiating further studies. Figure 2-1 — SR -91 Project Study Area from SR -57 to 1-15 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 8 29 BY YEAR 20 1 6 The first set of projects will be completed by 2016 and includes six (6) improvements at a total cost of approximately $1.57 billion (in 2011 dollars, or as noted). One of the projects is the interchange improvements at SR-71/SR-91. The Initial SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) will widen SR -91 by one general purpose (GP) lane in each direction east of the County Line, collector -distributor (CD) roads and direct south connectors at I-15/SR-91, extension of 91 Express Lanes to 1-15, and system interchange improvements. The other project that will be completed in this time frame includes the WB lane at Tustin Avenue. Some of these projects may become components of 2035 projects. Project No Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost ($M) 1 Metrolink Short -Term Expansion Plan (2013) 35.4 2 Widen SR -91 between SR -55 and SR -241 by Adding a 5'h GP Lane in Each Direction (2013) 71.0 3 SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements (2015) 120.2 4 SR -91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue (2015) 38.3 5 Initial CIP: Widen SR -91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction East of County Line, CD Roads and I-15/SR-91 Direct South Connector, Extension of Express Lanes to 1-15 and System/Local Interchange Improvements (2016) 1,300 6 Express Bus Improvements Orange County to Riverside County (2016) 9.5 SUBTOTAL 1,574 Figure 2-3 — Summary of Projects for Implementation By 2016 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 9 • 30 Metrolink Short -Term Expansion Plan • • Project No: 1 Anticipated Completion: 2013 Project Cost Estimate* OCTA Project Cost $ 35,400.000 Project Schedule To be completed by 2013 *Costs from OCTA (2009 dollars) Key Considerations Project Description Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), working with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SORRA), plans a short-term expansion of train service from the Inland Empire to Orange County. Additional trains are planned on the Inland Empire - Orange County (IEOC) Line that currently runs between San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties as well as the "91 Line" that goes from the Inland Empire to Los Angeles via Orange County, paralleling SR -91. Currently, there are 14 daily trains that run on the IEOC Line and nine (9) trains running on the 91 Line for a total of 23 daily trains. The short-term expansion adds four (4) additional IEOC trains and four (4) additional 91 Line trains by 2013 for a total of 31 daily trains, subject to negotiations with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), ROTC, and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). The planned short-term expansion is necessary to accommodate population and employment growth in the region and will make the current service more convenient. Capital costs necessary for this expansion includes the purchase of engines and coaches to operate the new service. OCTA costs are estimated at $35.4 million. The long-term plan (by 2020) adds more service and requires a significant capital investment, including an additional station in Placentia. Coordination has been ongoing with the Metrolink extension studies (see also Project #8 for long-term details). Benefits Enables development of expanded Metrolink Service and improves efficiency, which will contribute to congestion relief on SR -91. Current Status SORRA equipment procurement is underway with the Rotem Company for the purchase of trailer and cab cars, and also with MotivePower, Inc. for locomotives. Anticipated completion is 2013. Trains to Los Angeles • Wa• Fullerton Trains to Central/ South Orange County DAILY TRAINS Year 2010: 14 Year 2013: 22 DAILY TRAINS Year 2010 23 Year 2013: 31 ✓ New train engines and coaches ✓ $354 million 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 10 31 Widen SR -91 between SR -55 and SR -241 by Adding a 5th GP Lane in Each Direction Project No: 2 Anticipated Completion: 2013 Project Cost Estimate"` Capital Cost Support Cost PJW Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction $ 50,400,000 $ 20,300.000 $ 273,000 $ 70,973,000 Completed Completed Completed 20'11-20'13 `Costs from Caltrans engineer s estimate (2011 dollars) ENE} memo Existing Highway interchangentarip mese Emsting interenange f U a proposeo tntercnange .�. Hov or HOT Lane EYi5ting Lane WINN Project tmprovernent Lane AxixtIiar/ Lane Project Description This project proposes capacity and operational improvements by adding one general purpose (GP) lane on eastbound (EB) SR -91 from the SR -5515R-91 connector to east of the Weir Canyon Road interchange and on westbound (WB) SR -91 from just east of Weir Canyon Road interchange to the Imperial Highway (SR -90) interchange. Additionally, This project would facilitate truck traffic approaching the truck scales in both directions. Key Considerations Caltrans is not considering relocation of the truck scales at this time_ Benefits Alleviates congestion on WB SR -91 by eliminating the lane drop at the truck scales and providing a continuous GP lane to SR -90. Alleviates congestion on EB SR -91 by eliminationg the lane drop for northbound (NB) SR -55 at SR -91 by providing an auxiliary lane to Lakeview Avenue, and at SR -90 by providing a continuous GP lane through Weir Canyon Road. Current Status Final design was completed and approved by Caltrans in September 2010. The project received $22M of Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funding and $74M of State Transportation Improvement'Program (STIP) Augmentation funds. The project is anticipated to start construction by July 2011. Fairmont B1 Truck Scales Weir Canyon Rd 0 0,1 r ft Gypsum Canyon Rd On Oft a CSn ff On o ? {i Off on OfF din Off on (;Et NOTE: FAIRMONT BLVD IS CONTINGENT UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT #10 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 11 32 • • SR-71/SR-91 Interch ange Improvements Pro ject No: A ntic ipated Co mpletion: 2015 Project Co st Estimate' Total Project Cost $ 120,208,000 Project Schedule Prelimin ary Engine ering Completed Environmen tal 2008-2011 Design/Construction 2011-2015 ' Cost o btained fro m prelimina ry engineer's co st estimate (2011 do llars) LEGEND Existing Highway IntercrlangerRamp "roan County Line HOV or HOT Lan e ---'-' Existing Lane wag Project Improvement Lane HOT Lanes Extension eltiti CD Road Ne n Auxiliary Lane Project Des cription The current pr oject is anticipated to include a new two-lane direct connector flyover from eastbound (ED) SR -91 to n orthbound (NB) SR -71, and modifications to the existing Gre en River Road ES SR -91 On -Ramp. K ey Co nsiderations Project improvements need to be coordinat ed with the following projects: the SR -91 Corridor Improv ement Pr ojects (CIP) (Project #5 and #11), and the SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connect or (Project #7) . The Green River Road Overcr ossing R eplacem ent was compl eted in March 2009 (see Appendix Pr oject No. A) and co nsisted of replacing the previously existing Green River Road Overcrossing with a new six -lane wide, 4 -span o vercr ossing to accommodat e future wid ening of SR -91 by Projects #5, #7, and #11 . The SR -91 ED Lane Addition (see Appendix Project No. C) was completed in September 2010. The SR -91 CfP (Project #5 and #11) is in th e environmental phas e. A Project Study Report for the SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector (Project #7) was initiated in January 2011 with three alternatives being evaluated. Close coordination with the U .S. Army C orps of Engin eers, U Fish and Wildlife Ser vice, and D epartment of Fish and Game will also be required as the connector cr osses the Santa Aria River below the Prado Dam. In additi on, i mplementation of Major Inv estment Study (MIS) Corridor A (Project #12) within the median of SR -51 will r equire the ne ed for a three -level crossing of SR -91 and the proposed SR -71 direct flyover c onnector. Coordination will be required with an at -grade or grade -separated manag ed lane i ngress/ egress facility that may be located near the County Bou ndary as part of the SR -91 CIP (Project #5 and #11). Ben efits The pro ject will provide a new direct connector improvement fr om EB SR -91 to NB SR -71, replaci ng the geo metric choke point created by the existi ng conn ect or. The pr oject will als o improve traffic operations and ope rational efficiency by eliminating or minimizi ng weaving conflicts through the use of auxiliary lanes. Current Sta tus Preliminary engineering was completed and appr oved by Caltrans. This proj ect is currently circulating the draft envir onmental docume nt, and the en vironmental ph ase is anticipat ed to be completed by July 2011. Os Gypsu m Canyon Rd On Off C oal Canyon WLC Cou nty Line Gre en River Rd On a art Lanes shown are for the SR-71/SR-91 intercha nge east to n orth flyover conne cto r for SR -71, and con nector fro nt Green River Road to ES SR J1 Aut o Ce nter Dr Maple St on Ott On Off On Off ff On Of On Off On Off / ( d t rtlji.'"' Serfas Club Dr n Off Lane shown is f or Green River Rd ED SR -91 On -Ramp 2011 SR -91 IM PLEMENTATION PLAN 33 12 SR -9y1 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue Project No: 4 Anticipated Completion: 2015 Project Cost Estimate* Capital Cost Support Cost RAN Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction $ 22,000,000 $ 12,080,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 38,280,000 Completed Completed 2011-2013 2013-2015 * Costs and schedule are derived from the Draft Project Report documentation LEGEND Existing Highway smara Interchange/Ramp isavam Existing Interchange KMU HOV or HOT Lane Existing Lane Project Improvement Lane Existing Lanes Outline Project #2 Improvements Project Description The project will add a westbound (WB) auxiliary lane on SR -91 beginning at the northbound (NB) SR -55 to WB SR -91 connector through the Tustin Avenue interchange. A westbound (WB) SR -91 off - ramp to Tustin Avenue will exit just east of the NB SR -55 connector to reduce weaving issues where NB SR -55 merges with WB SR -91_ Key Considerations The three build -alternatives within the Project Study Report (PSR), On Westbound (WB) SR -91 Auxiliary Lane from the Northbound (NB) SR-55/WB SR -91 Connector to the Tustin Avenue Interchange, require additional right-of-way. City of Anaheim utilities are within close proximity of the proposed widening section. Widening of the Santa Ana River bridge is required for all alternatives. Coordination with the City of Anaheim will be required for potential widening of Tustin Avenue and the WB SR -91 Off -Ramp that will be completed by early 2011. A SR -91 Feasibility Study from SR -57 to SR -55 was completed in December 2009, which evaluated improvements from Lakeview Avenue through Tustin Avenue. Benefits The project would reduce or eliminate operational problems and deficiencies on this section of WB SR -91 including weaving and merging maneuvers. This project would also address choke -point conditions, which are caused primarily by extensive weaving between the NB SR -55 to WB SR -91 connector and the WB SR -91 off -ramp to Tustin Avenue. Current Status Preliminary engineering was completed and approved by Caltrans. The Project Report was approved by Caltrans in May 2011 and design is scheduled to begin in August 2011. The project received 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Augmentation funding. Tustin Av On off NB 55 On SB 55 Off Lakeview Av On 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 13 • • • 34 • Project No : 5 Anticipate d Co mple tion : 2016 Project Co st Es timate" Capital Cost $ 1,126,5500,000 Support Cost $ 173,500,000 Total Project Cost $ 1.300.000.000 Project Sche dule" 3relirmnary En gineering Co mpleted Environmental 2007-2012 Des iign uConstructio n 20' 12-2016 'Cost for Initia l Proje ct is from RCTC and is in 2010 do llars "" Schedule for Initial Project, subs equ ent pha se s for Ultimate Project a nticipate d Po st -2025 unless fu nding is identified t-- --Lane shown is for Pro) #2 Lane show n is for Proj #2 rayon Rd 's Off O ft v' On • • Initi al CIP: Widen SR -91 by On e GP Lane in Each Directio n East of County Lin e, CD Roads and I-15/SR-91 Direct South Connector, Exten sio n of Expre ss Lanes to I-15 and System(Local interchange Impro vements Pr oje ct D escriptio n The appro ved Project St udy Report (PSR) for the SR.91 Corridor 'Improvement Project (CIP), from SR -241 to Pierce Street, rec omme nded the :addition of a 5th lane in each dir ectio n, th e additi on of auxiliary lanes at various locati ons, and the addition of collector -distributor (CD) lanes at the SR -7115R-91 interchange (now part of Project #3) and at the 1-15/SR-01 interchange Subsequently , the Riverside Co unty Transp ortation Commissio n's (RCTC) 10 -Ye ar Delivery Plan rec omm ended the following in addition to the PSR rec omm ended improvem ents: the extensio n of the 91 Express La nes from the Orange C ounty lin e to I-15, the construction of SR -91 (ERN/BA-15 (SBINB) Express Lanes median direct connect ors, and the constructio n of one Express la ne in each directi on from the I- I51SR-S I int erch ange southerly tot 1S'Cajalc o Road, and north erly to I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway (Ultim ate Proje ct #111). D ue to current economic c onditio ns , a Project Phasing Plan was devel oped to allow an Intital Project with reduced impro vements to move forw ard as scheduled, with the r emaining ultimate improvements to be compl eted b etw een 2016 and 2035 Th e f ollowing is a summary of the deferred ultimate improvements (Project elle SR -911115 median North Dir ect C onne ctor arid f-15 E xpr es s Lanes North to Hidden Valley Parkway; /-f5 Express Lan es to be extended born Ontario A ve nue to Cor aico Road, g eneral purpose la nes fr om 1.15 lo Pierre .Street; and g eneral purpose lanes Por n SR -24t to SR -7f. Itey Cons 1deratfons Coordination among m any of the SR -91 freeway projects that overlap the pr oject limits is critical to successfully d eliveri ng th ese projects on sch ed ule and withi n budget Designing to accommod ate future projects is a recurring theme f or each of these projects Minimizing co nflicts in scope between projects requires direct c oordi nati on between each project t eam, Additi on ally, futur e projects frequently mu ltiple alternati ves under st udy, each with differing scope and constructi on footpri nts.poi 4 y have Specifically , f proj ect impr ovements wet ne need to c ontinu e to be the c oordi nated pr the SR 7 d i nterchange (Project #3) and the SR-241;'SR•9't Express lan es Conn ector (Project #7): which includes three alternatives f or further study that wilt need to be coordinated with the propos ed project. Continu ed co ordination will be required with th e Sa nt a A na Region al Int erceptor (SARI) sewer Iirre relocation and th e U.S. Army C orps of Engineers Sa nta An a River bank -pr ote ction pr ojects (Rea ch g Pha se 2A and 29). Benefits The Initial an d Ultimate CIP proj ects will reduce congesti on a nd delays by providing additio nal SR -91 capacity from SR -241 to Pierce Street, alo ng 1-15 from SR -91 to Cajalco Road to the s outh, and to Hidden Valle y Parkway to the north Tr affic operation will improve by eliminati ng or r educi ng weaving co nflicts along SR -91 a nd 1-15 by the rise of CD roads and auxili a lane . r motorists a choice to use Express Lanes for a fee in exchange f or time savi ngs . ry s The p o)ect will provide Current Status A Proje ct Study Re po rt was completed and approved by Caltrans, The project is currently in the environmental phase that c omm enced in September 2007 and is anticip ated to be completed by early.2012, The Draft env ironmental docu ment has been circulated. Coat Canyon Coun ty Lin e Gree n haver Rd WIC On uhf fit( On% O ingress/tgress lan es shhown. within the Express Lanes Ott Aut o Center Dr Mapl e St On Off on On l`;<;( on On on off On Ott On Ott Serfas Club Or `- Lanes shown a re for the SR-71/SR-H t Interchange {Proj so) auxiliary lane, east to north flyover co nnecto r tar 9R-71/ER 9 PSR Alternative 2_ and ES SR -S'1 co nn ector Porn Green River Road 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 14 35 Li nc oln As On 3 -Lane CD Road Co nnector • from Main St. EB on -ramp braids . to phn SR -51 as a merge r amp 1-1 blOntatla Av Off `On Fr om from 88 15 14815 LEGEND Extsti ng liionway . .";, intercham e/ Ra nip w rr Co unty Line ?'1 H OC or HOT Lane Existing Lane NM Protect epproverrent L ane >•'.` HOT La nes Extension ttlf it_ co R oad USX Auxili ary lane ._. Protect #2 a nd #3 Braided Co nn ector HOV/HOT lanes to "-Additional lane by restnpe of ousting lanes Project No: 6 Anticipated Completion: 2016 Project Cost Estimate* Total Capital Cost $ 9,500,000 Total Annual Operating Cost $ 1,000,000 Project Schedule Riverside/Corona to South Coast Metro implemented Fall 2006 Riverside/Corona to La Sierra Metrolink Station to Irvine Business Complex/UCI in FY 2015/2016 Riverside/Corona to North East Anaheim and CSUF in FY 2015/2016 Riverside/Corona to Anaheim Resort in FY 2015/2016 *Costs from OCTA (2010 dollars) 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Project Description Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), working with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the Riverside Transit. Agency (RTA), plans an extensive expansion of Express Bus service between Riverside and Orange counties. Commuters lack direct transit connections to many Orange County employment centers, and new Express Bus service will provide connections to major employment centers in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Irvine. Three new Express Bus routes are planned from Riverside County to the Anaheim Canyon Business Center and California State University Fullerton; Anaheim Civic Center, Western Medical Center, and Anaheim Resort; and Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine (UCI). Routes would run every 30 to 45 minutes in the peak period, and service will be tailored to match demand. Implementation began in Fall 2006 with the Riverside County to Hutton Centre and South Coast Metro mute. The other routes are planned for implementation by Fiscal Year 2015/2016 contingent on future budget authority and Transit System Study implementation plans_ Key Considerations Operating costs are estimated at $1,000,000 each year_ Costs are shared by Orange and Riverside counties_ Benefits Development of Express Bus services will contribute to congestion relief on SR -91. Current Status A cooperative agreement covering the Riverside/Corona to South Coast Metro service with Riverside County has been developed. The Riverside County to South Coast Metro Express Bus route is currently operating. Expansion of the program is dependent upon available operating funds and future financial committments with Riverside County. In addition, the implementation dates may change based on results of the Transit System Study, which in anticipated to be completed by summer 2011_ 15 Express Bus improvements Orange County to Riverside County • • • 36 • • 180 335 425 940 BY YEAR 2025 Projects for implementation by 2025 include a SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes direct connector, a significant expansion of Metrolink service and station improvements and SR -91 improvements between SR -57 and SR -55. OCTA, ROTC, and Caltrans have initiated preliminary planning activities for these projects to ensure readiness when local, state, or federal funding becomes available. Consequently, there may be opportunities to advance these projects if additional funding is made available. Projects for implementation by 2025 are expected to cost up to approximately $940 million (in 2011 dollars, or as noted). Project Summary (Implementation Year) Cost ($M) 7 SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector (2017) 8 Metrolink Service and Station Improvements (2020) 9 SR -91 between SR -57 and SR -55 (2025) SUBTOTAL Figure 2-4 — Summary of Projects for Implementation By 2025 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 16 37 SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector Project No : 7 Anticipated Completion' 2017 Pro ject Cost Estimate Range* Total Pro j. Cost, Low $ 135,000,000 Total Proj. Co st. High $ 180,000,000 Project Schedule Conceptua l En gineering Env iro nmental Design/Con struction 2011.2012 2011-2013 2013-2017 'Ra nge assumes a 2 -lane connector, extending as far as Co al Canyon. Costs fro m TCA Project Fact Sheet (2011 dollars) ann shown \ Is for Proj If 2 Cartyon Rd -t On off Lens s hown is for ('rot fit c Off Pr oject Description The SR-241/SR-91 Express Lan es con nector will carry northb ound (NB) SR -241 traffic to eastbound (EB) SR -91 Express La nes and carry westbound (WE) SR 91 Expres s Lanes traffic . to southb ound (SB) SR -241.. Outside wide ning would be required mai nly on the s outh side of SR -91 for realignment of al la nes up to th e Coal Canyon Wildlife Corridor Crossing, Key Co nsiderations This project was originally permitted as a High Occ upancy V ehicle (H OV) co nnect or int o the SR -91 H OV lane. With the implementation of the 91 Express Lanes, the proje ct wilt need to carefully coordinat e the traffic operations and t olling practices that will result with the convergenc e of the SR -24 t toll ro ad , th e existing OCTA 91 Express Lanes, and the pr oposed extension of the 91 Express Lanes. Th e project wilt follow the SR -91 CIP (Pr oject #5) in its implem entati on and will need to be designed acc ordingly. Conti nuous operations of the 91 Express Lanes will be a key c onsid eration to this project. Corridor A (Project #121 will also n eed to be pl anned with this project in mind . Th e prelimi nary analysis calls for the SR -'91 center m edian to be widened to th e so uth to make room f or a two l ane ( one in each directi on) direct c onnector . The pr oject would tie int o the SR -91 CPP improvements at C oal Ca nyo n. Benefits The project will close the current toll system g ap between the future and existing 91 Express La nes and the SR -241 Eastern Tr ansp ortation Syst em . The pr oject improv es access to SR -241 and South Cou nty for traffic that doe s not curr ently utilize the 91 Expr ess Lanes, which also impr ov es WB SR -91 by eliminating the need f or HOV and Express. Lane us ers to weave across four general purp ose lanes to use the existing SR -241 connector It helps to all eviate congestion on NB SR -241 and E8 SR -91 by allowing SR -241 users to bypass the existi ng EB SR -91 gen eral p urpose c onnector . Th e proje ct may also provide a benefit to the Central Cou nty MIS. Current Status Preliminary engineering concepts for a SR-241(SR-91 direct con ne ctor have been developed by Transportation Corrid or Agencies (TCA) and Caitrans. The 91 Express Lanes Extensi on and SR -241 Co nnector Feasibility Stu dy was co mpleted in March 2009 and was initiated to evaluate the various alter natives. A Project Study Report was initiated in January 20t1 and will be complete by July 2012. Coal Can yon County Line Green River Rd WLC On Cm ingre ss'Fgress lanes shown) within the Express Lanes On Auto Cent er Dr Ott On Ott �t on Series Club Dr Maple St On Oft Off is -Lr -Lanes show n are toe Ure 5R-71/SR-El interchange (Prof . ti3) auxiliary lane, east to no rth flyo ver conne ctor for SR-7t:SR -9t PSR Alterna tive 2, and Eta SR -91 connector from Gree n Raver Road 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • 17 38 Ott On Mai n St On On ■ s on as Oil On a: n'On On From Fr om SB 15 NB 1t HOV/HOT la nes to 1-15/Ontano Av LEGEND amm o Exisnr q . .ig:nway wwaver a. I nt srcha ngcrria m.^, - County Line S tall9 HO C or HOT Lane ".,; Exisilxi Lace SIN P,rsjecl . trim'n"•en1 L air HOT Lamers Exienvvun BRIM 0D Road (Project #51 NOM Auxiliary lane. -..-._ . Prrinci 52. #3 and 5" r * Br aided Connector • Metrolink Service and Station Improvements • Project No: 8 Anticipated Completion: 2020 Project Cost Estimate* Total Capital Cost $ 335.000,000 Project Schedule To be completed by 2020 *Costs from OCTA (2009 dollars Project Description Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), working with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), plans an extensive expansion of train service from the inland Empire to Orange County. Additional trains are planned on the Inland Empire - Orange County (IEOC) Line that currently runs between San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties as well as the 91 Line that goes from the Inland Empire to Los Angeles via Orange County, paralleling SR -91. Currently, 14 trains a day run on the IEOC Lime and nine (9) trains on the 91 Line. The long-term expansion plan builds on service levels that will be implemented by 2013 (Project #1). The "2013" plan includes four (4) additional IEOC trains and four (4) additional 91 Line trains for a total of 31 trains a day The long-term plan adds another four (4) 1EOC trains and five (5) 91 Line trains for a total of 40 daily trains. This planned expansion is necessary to accommodate population and employment growth in the region and will make the current service more convenient. Capital improvements necessary for this expansion include a third track on sections of the rail line in Orange, Riverside. and San Bernardino counties; new crossovers at critical locations to allow trains to pass one another, new storage tracks in San Bernardino; parking improvements at key stations; and purchase of engines and coaches to operate the new service_ The City of Anaheim is proposing to construct the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). Phase I will be completed by 2015 and will relocate the existing Metrolink station from the Angel Stadium parking lot to the new ARTIC site east of SR -ST Phase I includes a new Metrolink and Amtrak service facility, and infrastructure improvements for California High -Speed Rail (CHSR) and bus services. Phase 11 build -out is anticipated by 2020 and includes new services based upon increased demand, which include Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and a local fixed -guideway project. The Phase III ultimate build -out by 2030 includes additional terminal facilities with new regional services to include CHSR and the Anaheim to Ontario segment of the California -Nevada Super Speed Train (CNSST). The City is also proposing Anaheim Canyon Station improvements for a second track and platform to be implemented by 201312014. The City of Placentia is proposing to construct a new Metrolink commuter rail passenger station and parking lot within the city limits by 2015. Key Considerations The capital program is estimated to cost $335 million, and costs would be shared by the member agencies of SCRRA and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Service levels are subject to negotiation with BNSF, RCTC, and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA)_ Benefits Enables development of new Metrolink Services, which will contribute to congestion relief on SR -91. Current Status The proposed implementation of this project is being evaluated based on declining ridership and revenues. Trains lo Les Angeles „.._ via Fageton Trans to Ceniraf l South grange County DAILY TRAINS Year 2010: 14 Year 2030: 26 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DAILY TRAINS Year 2013. 31 Year 2030: 40 ✓ New track and crossovers Expanded station parking ✓ New train engines and coaches ✓ 335 million 18 39 SR -91 between SR -57 and SR -55 Project No: 9 Anticipated Completion: 2025 Project Cost Estimate Capital Cost TBD RtW Cost TBD Support Cost TBD Management & Contingency TBD Total Project Cost, Low* $253,000,000 Total Project Cost, Nigh' $425,000,000 Project Schedule: Conceptual Engineering Completed Preliminary Engineering 2011-2013 Environmental 2013-2018 Design 2018-2021 Construction 2021-2025 'Project costs from the SR -91 - SR -55 to SR -57 Feasibility Study (2009 dollars) Project Description Improve the SR -5715R-91 interchange complex, including nearby local interchanges, as welt as adding freeway capacity between SR -55 and SR -57. A new connector from westbound (WB) SR -91 to southbound (SB) SR -55 will be constructed. Improvements also extend to State College Blvd to the west and include improvements to the Lakeview Ave interchange to the east Specific improvements will be subject to approved plans developed in cooperation with local jurisdictions and affected communities_ Key Considerations The proposed project improvements on WB and eastbound {EB) SR -91 between SR -57 and SR -55 may require right-of-way acquisition. Coordination with the SR -91 WB Lane at Tustin Avenue improvements (Project #5) will be required_ Benefits The proposed project improvements on WB and EB SR -91 between SR -57 and SR -55 include, among other features, adding one EB general purpose lane to achieve lane balancing. The project improvement will alleviate congestion and reduce delay. The SR-57/SR-91 and SR-55/SR-91 interchange improvements are expected to provide congestion relief for SR -91 traffic_ Current Status The project improvement for EB SR -91 widening and for improvements to SR-57/SR-91 and SR-55/SR-91 were studied by the SR -91 Feasibility Study Report from SR -57 to SR -55, which was completed in June 2009. Preliminary engineering will begin in mid -2011. The proposed improvements are included in the Measure M2 program. 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 19 • • • 40 • • BY YEAR 2035 Projects for implementation by 2035 focus on longer -lead time projects. This multi -billion dollar program includes: a potential new interchange or overcrossing at Fairmont Boulevard; the Ultimate CIP that widens SR -91 by one GP lane in each direction from SR -241 to SR -71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North Connector, extension of Express Lanes on 1-15 and SR -91 improvements east of 1-15; an elevated 4 -lane facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR -241 to 1-15; Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) 4 -lane facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (formerly known as MIS Corridor B); and the Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed Rail. The $77 million dollar interchange project and the other four, multi -billion dollar potential projects include significant environmental constraints and right of way requirements in addition to requiring a significant amount of planning, design, and future policy and public input. The Corridor A project may incorporate projects being developed in the earlier programs as project components. Project No. 10 Project Summary (Implementation Year) Fairmont Boulevard Improvements (Post -2025) Cost ($M) 76.8 11 Ultimate CIP: Widen SR -91 by One GP Lane in Each Direction from SR -241 to SR -71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North Connector, Extension of Express Lanes on 1-15 and SR -91 Improvements East of 1-15 (Post -2025) TBD 12 Elevated 4 -Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR -241 to 1-15 (TBD) 2,720 13 Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) 4 -Lane Facility from SR-241/SR-133 to I-15/Cajalco Road (TBD) 8,855 14 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed Rail (Post -2030) TBD SUBTOTAL 11,650+ Figure 2-5 — Summary of Projects for Implementation by 2035 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 20 41 Fairmont Boulevard Improvements Project No: 10 Anticipated Completion: Post -2025 Project Cost Estimate * Capital Cost Support Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule Conceptual Engineering Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction $ 67,800,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 76,800,000 Completed TBD TBD TBD TBD *Costs from Feasibility Study (2009 dollars)_ RAW cost is undetermined at this time. Cost does not include potential impact to Santa Ana River. LEGEND ® Existing Highway csmi Proposed Interchange/Ramp Existing Interchange HOV or HOT Lane Existing Lane Proposed tmprovement -Lanes Project tf2 improvements Projec 2 L anes Project Description The project would provide a new interchange with SR -91 at Fairmont • Boulevard_ On- and off -ramps will connect Fairmont Boulevard to eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) SR -91. The proposed interchange does not include a Fairmont Boulevard connection to Santa Ana Canyon Road to the south. Key Considerations Coordination with SR -91 EB and WB widening from SR -55 to SR -241 (Project #2) is required. Interchange spacing and weaving issues (to SR -55) need to be evaluated. Widening of SR -91 may be needed to accommodate interchange ramps. Proximity of the Santa Ana River may require that the WB ramp junction be located north of the river. New connection requirements and interchange spacing needs to be considered. Benefits The interchange is expected to relieve congestion at imperial Highway (SR -90), Lakeview Avenue, and Weir Canyon Road Interchanges. Preliminary traffic modeling shows a 10-15% decrease in volumes at Weir Canyon and SR -90 interchanges with the interchange alternative. Current Status The City of Anaheim completed a conceptual engineering study in December 2009. Multiple alternatives have been developed as part of the conceptual engineering study. Project development is pending funding identification. Fairmont Blvd On Off On 2011 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 21 42 • • • Ultimate CIP: Wid en SR -91 by One GP La ne in Ea ch Dir ection from SR -241 to SR -71, I-15/SR-91 Dir ect North Co nnector, Exte nsio n of Expr ess La nes on 1-15 and SR -91 Improvements East of 1-15 Project No: 11 Anticipated Completion: Post -2025 Project. Cost Estimate To Be Determined Project Schedule' Prelimina ry En ginee ring Environmen tal Design/Construction Co mpleted 2007-2012 TBD ` Schedule for Ultimate Project anticipated po st -2025 unle ss fu nding is ide ntified Ex is tin g bike pa th wiit be pre serve d .... \ --La ne sfrown is for Prot f£2 O Gypsum Canyon Rd Project Description The approved Project Study Report (PSR) for the SR -91 Corrid or Improvement Project (CIP), from SR -241 to Pierce Street, recommended the addition of a 5th lane In each direction, the additi on of auxiliary lanes at various l ocations, and the addition of collector -distributor (CD) lanes at the SR-71/SR-91 interchange (now part of Pr oject #3) and at the I-15/SR-91 intercha nge.Subsequently, the Riverside CountyTransporta- ti on Commissi on's (RCTC) 10 -Year Delivery Plan recommended the following in addition to the PSR recommended improvements:the extension of the 91 Express Lanes fr om the Orange County line to I-15, the construction of SR -91 (EB/ WB),1-15 (SB/NB) Express Lanes median direct connectors, and the construction of one Express Lane in each direction from the l-15/SR-91 interchange southerly to !-15/Cajalco Road, and northerly to 1.15Midden Valley Parkway (Ultimate Project). Due to current economic conditions, a Project Phasing Plan was developed to allow an Initial Project (Project #5), with reduced improvements, to move f orward as scheduled with the remaining ultimate improvements to be completed between 2016 and 2035 .The following is a summary of the proposed ultimate impr ovements: 511-91/1 .15 median North Direct Connector and 1-15 Express Lanes North to Hidden Valley Parkway; I-15 Express Lanes to be extended from Ontario Avenue to Cajalc o Road; general purpose lanes from 1.15 to Pierce Street; and general purpose lanes from 5R-241 to SR -71. Key Consideratio ns Coordination am ong many of the. SR -9I freeway projects that overlap the project limits Is critical to successfully delivering these projects on schedule and within budget . Designing to accommodate future projects is a recurring th eme for each of these projects . Minimizing conflicts In scope between pr ojects requires direct coordination betwee n each project team . Additionally, future projects frequently have mu ltiple alternatives under study, each with differing sc ope and c onstructi on footprints,Specifically,the project improvements need to continue to be coordinated with the SR-71/SR-91 interchange (Project #3); the In itial CIP (Project #5) and the SR-241/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector (Project #7),which includes three alternatives for f urther study that will need to be coordinated with the prop osed project, Continued coordinatio n will be required with the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) sewer line relocation and the U,S .Army Corps of Engineers riverbank protection projects (Reach 9 Phase 2A and 2e). Benefits The Initial and Ultimate OP projects will reduce congestion and delays by providing additional SR -91 capacity from SR -241 to Pierce Street and along 1.15 from SR -91 to Cajalco R oad to the south and to Hidden Valley Parkway to the north.Traffic operation will improve by eliminating or reducing weaving conflicts along SR -91 and1-15 by the use of CD roads and auxiliary lanes.The pr oject will provide motorists a choice to use Express Lanes for a fee in exchange for time savings, Current Status Preliminary engineering is co mplete.The project is currently in the environmental phase that comme nced in September 2007 and is anticipated to be completed by early -2012, Coal Canyon V,/LC e-Lanesnows ?4t Ingress/Egress within -I is for Proj #2 Coun ty Line Oil the Express Lanes r Lanes shown are for the SR-71/SR-91 Interchange (Pro) N3)-1/ aux iliary lane, east to north flyover co nnector for 5R -71/5R-91 P511 Alternative 2, and EB SR -91 con tractor from Green River Road 2011 SR -91 Implementation Pla n Ultimate prnjccr widens OR $R, 91 lanes to Ms standard late a nd shoulder width s torn SR -241 to SR -71 Erin On. r\ La nes drown are for Green Rive and ES SR -91 CD (Prnj 53) A uto Center Dr Maple St On gEg Off on off ott Ott Serfas Club Dr On Lincoln Av 0 Cn Sl ai n St � Ott ... . Ott Of 3 .Lano CD Road Connocto,- lir.,rn Main St. EH on -ramp bfrads to join SR -01 as s mere ramp Gnu Off NOV/ HOT Lan es to t -15/t- laden Valley Pkwy ice On on Frill' Fran 38 15 1,4815 HOV,'HOT la nes t., t-15/Cajal9d Rd 22 LE GEND "'"00. Existing Hrghway +-�+-- inlerch ar.gei Rsnix . Co unty Li n- ;u.I.1.56 NOV or C OT La ne Exrsucg L.anc #10tH Prcyn;;t lmr v:,ve -se nt L.an=. Y14 `:4 HOVJHOT Lanes Extension CD R oad IPryject b5; uxiliary I Protect #2 , #3. #5, and #7 43 Elevated 4 -Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) Cro -Section Elevated 4 -Lane Facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR -241 to 1-15 Project No: 12 Anticipated Completion: TBD Project Cost Estimate`` Capital Cost' $ 1,488000,000 Support Cost (25%) $ 372,000,000 RIW Cost $ 860,000,000 Total Project Cost $ 2,720,000,000 Project Schedule Conceptual Engineering Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 'Capital costs include $160M for environmental mitigation excluding corresponding support cost, which is included in support cost estimate "Costs derived from Riverside Coun Orange County MIS, January 2006 (2005 dollars) 2 WB Lanes Abbreviations: Westbound = WB Eastbound = EB Project Description The improvements primarily consist of constructing a new 4 -lane elevated expressway near or within the Santa Ana Canyon with freeway -to -freeway connectors at SR -241 and 1-15. The facility may include managed lanes and potential reversible operations_ Key Considerations Choice of alignment will be key to determining net capacity increase. Extensive right-of-way (RAN) will be required to implement the improvements if the alignment is not on the SR -91 corridor. If Project #5 or #11 is constructed and a 4 -lane elevated facility is proposed within the median of SR -91 through Corona, extensive managed lane closures would be required during construction (thus temporarily reducing SR -91 capacity during construction). Potential considerations for co -locating the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) train (see Project #14) adjacent to Corridor A (and also SR -91) include providing a two -column structure with a barrier between the trains and vehicles_ Concepts for Corridor A and Maglev within the SR -91 median could jeopardize future opportunities for managed lanes within the SR -91 median, such as the extension of 91 Express Lanes. An alternative could be studied for the median Corridor A viaduct along with reduced SR -91 geometric standards to minimize R!W impacts. Also, direct connectors (such as for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) / High Occupancy Toll (HOT) at I-15/SR-91) to/from the median could be precluded by Maglev columns located within the same median area. Caltrans and Maglev highway R/W, maintenance, safety, and operations considerations would need to be analyzed if shared use with a Maglev facility were pursued_ Additional mitigation costs may be required for improvements to SR -241 and SR -133 as a result of additional Corridor traffic volumes. Corridor A as managed lanes, with potential extension of 91 Express Lanes to 1-15 (Project #5 and #11), may affect traffic distribution due to "parallel" tolled facilities_ Benefits The project vehicles to 2 EB Lanes would provide significant congestion relief by allowing bypass the at -grade freeway lanes and local arterial interchanges between SR -241 and I-15_ Connections are proposed directly between SR -91, SR -241, and I-15_ Current Status This project is identified in the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) as part of the Locally Preferred Strategy to improve mobility between Riverside County and Orange County. No project development work is planned at this time. 2011 SR -91 Implementation Plan 23 44 • • • • Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) 4 -Lane Facility from SR-24I/SR-133 to l-15/Cajalco Road Project No: 13 Anticipated Completion: TBD Project Cost Estimate* Capital Cost Support Cost (25%) R/W Cost Total Project Cost $ 7,675,000,000 $ 880,000,000 $ 300,000,000 $ 8,855,000,000 Project Schedule Geotechnical Feasibility Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction Completed TBD TBD TBD TBD `Costs derived from the Feasibility Evaluation Report (2009 dollars) LEGEND Existing Highway ICE (Corridor B) Representative Alignment NOTE: REPRESENTATIVE ALIGNMENT SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY 2011 SR -91 Implementation Plan Project Description The improvements primarily consist of constructing a highway and rail facility through the Cleveland National Forest with freeway -to -freeway connectors at SR-241/SR-133 and 1-15/Cajalco Road_ The facility would essentially be a continuation of SR -133 on the west end of the corridor, to 1-15 on the east end. Key Considerations The tunnel project is technically feasible based on the geotechnical investigation completed in December 2009. The initial project phase would be the construction of one 2 -lane highway tunnel and one rail tunnel. The second project phase would include construction of a second 2 -lane highway tunnel. Additional technical studies and geotechnical borings would be needed to refine the tunnel alignments and grades_ Costs associated with the Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) tunnels are based on the Feasibility Evaluation Report completed in December 2009. A financial analysis will be needed for the construction, operations and toll requirements of the ICE tunnels_ Benefits The project would provide significant congestion relief by providing an alternative route between Orange and Riverside counties and would allow vehicles to bypass SR -91 between SR -241 and I-15. The project would not disrupt SR -91 traffic during construction and would allow for additional route selection for incident management, emergency evacuation and for continuity of the highway network by linking SR -133 to 1-15. Current Status On August 27, 2010 the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority Board took action to defer additional study of the ICE project until such time as financial considerations improve and/or technological advancements warrant reexamination_ Review of the project shall be done annually through the SR -91 Implementation Plan update to determine if any of the major assumptions with regard to financial considerations, private sector interest, or technological advancements have changed to make the tunnel financially viable. 24 45 Anaheim to Ontario International Airport High Speed Rail Project No: 14 Anticipated Completion: Post -2030 Project Cost Estimate To Be Determined Project Schedule To Be Determined LEGEND .ow Existing Highway High Speed Rani Representative Alignment Project Description Proposals for a new high speed rail corridor from Anaheim to Ontario are• included in this project. This project includes an alternative that would use SR -91 right-of-way, or would be aligned adjacent to SR -91 right-of-way, or could potentially be co -located with the Major Investment Study (MIS) Corridor A (Project #12) alignment_ Another alignment opportunity is being investigated along SR -57. Key Considerations Alternative alignment impacts to SR -91 right-of-way envelope and/or Santa Ana River are undetermined. The choice of alignment will potentially impact MIS Corridor A (Project #12). Right-of-way (RAN) will be required to implement the improvements. Potential considerations for co -locating the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) train adjacent to Corridor A (and also SR -91) include providing a two -column structure with a barrier between the trains and vehicles. Caltrans and Maglev highway R/W, maintenance, safety, and operations considerations would need to be analyzed if shared use with a Maglev facility were pursued. See the MIS Corridor A (Project #12) for additional considerations. Coordination with Metrolink improvements (Project #8) will be required. Benefits The project would provide congestion relief and other economic benefits to the region by providing a 14.5 minute direct high-speed/high-capacity connection with Ontario International Airport for Orange County air passengers and business next -day deliveries. Relieves congestion on SR -91 by providing additional capacity in the corridor. Current Status An agreement is in place with the FRA, Caltrans, Nevada Department of Transportation, and California -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission to complete preliminary engineering and an EIS/EIR for the Anaheim -Las Vegas maglev system, inclusive of the Anaheim -Ontario international Airport connector project. ("Project)_ Phases 1 and 2 of the Project EIS have been completed_ Congress has approved $45M for additional Project related preliminary engineering and environmental work. REPRESENTATIVE ALIGNMENT SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY 2011 SR -91 Implementation Plan 46 25 • • • • SECTION3: COMPLETED PROJECT EXHIBITS The following exhibits represent completed projects from previous Plans and are intended to be used as a reference to illustrate the progress made since the inception of the Plan. Note, some projects listed in the Plan as completed (see Section 1, Project Accomplishments) are not included herein since there was no exhibit created for use with prior Plans (such as for restriping projects, various safety enhancements, minor operational improvements, etc.). 2011 SR -91 Implementation Plan 26 47 Green River Road Overcrossing Replacement • • Appendix Project No: A Actual Completion: March 2009 Project Costs Capital Cost Support Cost RIW Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction S 21,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $301,000 $ 24,301,000 Completed Completed Completed Completed Project Schedule Caltrans Equivalents: Preliminary Engineering = PID Environmental = PA/ED Design = PS&E Abbreviations: CD = Collector Distributor Lane FTR = Future HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle SHLD = Shoulder Project Description Improvements primarily consist of replacing the existing Green River Road overcrossing with a new six -lane wide, 4 -span overcrossing to accommodate future widening of SR -91. The interior spans will accommodate up to eight mainline lanes in each direction including two HOV lanes. The exterior spans can accommodate two lanes, either for auxiliary lanes or collector distributor roads. Entrance and exit ramps will be realigned and widened to accommodate the new bridge, yet the interchange will retain its current configuration New signals will be installed at the ramp intersections. Ramp and bridge improvements will be constructed within existing right of way. Key Considerations Design interface is required with the Eastbound Lane Addition from SR 241 to SR -71, SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements, SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project, and SR-241/SR-91 HOV/HOT Connector. Benefits The project will improve the level of service at ramp and local street intersections at the interchange. Improvements will reduce ramp queues that extend into the freeway's general purpose lanes. thus contributing to congestion relief on SR -91. Current Status The project began construction in March 2007 and was completed in March 2009. GREEN RIVER BRIDGE CROSS-SECTION NOTE: All dimensions are approximate 2011 SR -91 Implementation Plan 27 48 North Main Street Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure Appendix Project No: B Actual Completion: June 2009 Project Costs Capital Cost Support Cost R/W Cost Total Protect Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction $ 20.000.000 S 5,000;000 $0 $ 25.000.000 Completed Completed Completed Completed Project Description The project provides a six level parking structure with 1,065 parking stalls. The construction is within the existing North Main Street Metrolink station property in Corona. Key Considerations Proposed improvements were constructed within existing right of way. Currently there are 700 users of the facility, 200 more that were previously able to accomodate. Additionally RCTC has opened up the lot to park and ride carpools and vanpools and has issued over 120 permits for carpoolers to use the expanded station. This shows an added benefit of supporting carpooling as well as transit to offset congestion on SR -91. Benefits Demand for parking currently exceeds the capacity at the North Main Street Corona station. New parking capacity will allow Metrolink ridership to increase thereby diverting vehicle trips from SR -91. Current Status Construction was initiated in January 2008 and was completed in June 2009. The project was funded with Federal Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ)funds. 2011 SR -91 Implementation Plan 28 • • • 49 Eastbound Lane Addition from SR -241 to SR -71 Appendix Project No: C Actual Completion: September 2010 Project Cost Estimate Capital Cost Support Cost R/W Cost Total Project Cost Project Schedule Preliminary Engine Environmental Design Construction $ 41,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 2,200;000 $ 51,200,000 ring Completed Completed Completed Completed LEGEND Existing Highway maw InterchangeRarnp minmir County Lune HOV or HOT Lane Existing Lane Project improvement Lane Existing interchange �• On Gypsum Canyon Rd On Off Off On Off Project Description The project will provide an additional eastbound (EB) lane from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-71/SR-91 interchange and will widen all EB lanes and shoulders to standard widths. Key Considerations Coordination with the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Projects (Project #4 and #12) will be required. Staged construction would be required for all ramp reconstruction and freeway widening_ Freeway operations would most likely be affected by this project, however, freeway lane closures are not anticipated. An EB concrete shoulder will be constructed with a 12 foot width to provide for future widening as contemplated by Project #4 and #12. Benefits" The lane addition would help to alleviate the weaving condition between SR -241 and SR -71, as well as remove vehicles from the SR -91 mainline that would be exiting at Green River Road and SR -71. Current Status Funding is from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) with $71.44M approved, and the balance of project costs are from other sources. Construction began in late 2009 and was completed in September 2010. Off Coal Canyon WLC County 1 On 2011 SR -91 Implementation Plan me Green River Rd On Of On Off On Off On 29 50 SECTION 4: REFERENCES The following documents and resources were used in the development of the 2011 Plan. Data was provided by OCTA, ROTC, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), and other agencies. PS&E "On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County" (April 2011) Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Orange County SR -91 Corridor Final Report, August 2010 Project Study Report/Project Report "Right of Way Relinquishment on Westbound State Route 91 Between Weir Canyon Road and Coal Canyon", May 2010 SR-91/Fairmont Boulevard Feasibility Study, December 2009 SR -91 Feasibility Study from SR -57 to SR -55, December 2009 Feasibility Evaluation Report for Irvine -Corona Expressway Tunnels, December 2009 Renewed Measure M Strategic Plan, June 2009 Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for Eastbound SR -91 lane addition from SR -241 to SR -71, May 2009 Project Study Report "On State Route 91 Between the SR-91/SR-55 Interchange and the SR-91/SR-241 Interchange in Orange County", April 2009 91 Express Lanes Extension and State Route 241 Connector Feasibility Study, March 2009 Project Study Report/Project Report "On Gypsum Canyon Road Between the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Westbound Off - Ramp (PM 16.4) and the Gypsum Canyon Road/SR-91 Eastbound Direct On -Ramp (PM 16.4)", June 2008 California Transportation Commission, Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), February 2007 Project Study Report "On Route 91 from Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the City of Corona in Riverside County", December 2006 Orange County Transportation Authority Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan, November 2006 Project Study Report "On Route 91 from State Route 241 in Orange County to Pierce Street Riverside County", October 2006 Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) — Final Project Report: Locally January 2006 in the City of Riverside in Preferred Strategy Report, Preliminary design plans for Eastbound Lane Addition from SR -241 to SR -71, 2006 Project Study Report "Westbound State Route 91 Auxiliary Lane from the NB SR-551WB SR -91 Connector to the Tustin Avenue Interchange", July 2004 California — Nevada Interstate Maglev Project Report, Anaheim -Ontario Segment; California -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, American Magline Group, August 2003 Route Concept Reports for SR -91, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 Various Preliminary Drawings and Cross Sections, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 2011 SR -91 Implementation Plan 30 • • • 51 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local streets and roads funds. First, the Coachella Valley and Western County cities and the county must be participating in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. Western County agencies must also participate in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan managed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The cities of Beaumont and La Quinta are not TUMF participants, and Commission staff is in the process of obtaining confirmation from CVAG, WRCOG, and RCA regarding the current participation in their programs. Additionally, agencies are required to annually provide to the Commission a CIP detailing how those funds are to be expended and an annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On February 28, 2011, Commission staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist in preparation of the required CIP. The required CIP and supporting documentation have been received from all of the local agencies except the county of Riverside and the city of Cathedral City, which have informed Commission staff that they will submit the respective CIPs within a few weeks. Late submittals will be presented to the Commission for approval at subsequent meetings. The FY 2011/12 Measure A 52 Agenda Item 8B Local Streets and Roads disbursements to local agencies with Commission approved CIPs are expected to begin in September 2011. The CIPs received are posted on the Commission's website and are on file at the Commission. Attachment: FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year CIPs — Posted on Commission Website 53 • • • Agenda Item 8B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure A Program Maintenance of Effort BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year levels for the following cities: • Banning • Indian Wells • Murrieta • Blythe • Indio • Norco • Canyon Lake • Lake Elsinore • Perris • Corona • Moreno Valley • Riverside • Desert Hot Springs • Temecula; and 2) Approve the city of Riverside's (Riverside) request for special consideration regarding its 2009 MOE base year level. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local streets and roads funds. The 2009 Measure A ordinance continued the requirement for local agencies to maintain the current commitment of local discretionary expenditures toward transportation construction and maintenance activities. This requirement is to ensure that Measure A funds supplement current expenditures, not supplant. In accordance with the 2009 Measure A ordinance, if local agencies do not meet their respective MOE base year level in a given year, Measure A Local Streets and Roads disbursements will be withheld the following year. At its July 2010 meeting, the Commission approved the MOE guidelines developed by staff and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The guidelines also indicated that the implementation of the 2009 MOE base year levels would be applicable to FY 2011/12. For the first two years of the 2009 Measure A program Agenda Item 8C 54 (i.e., FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11), the Commission approved the use of the 1989 Measure A MOE base year amounts, or the Proposition 42 MOE amount for cities incorporated in or after 1989. The 2009 Measure A MOE annual certification process is as follows: • Local agencies complete the MOE report template to include discretionary general fund expenditures for construction and maintenance activities for the reporting year. • General ledger documentation/forms must be submitted as an attachment to the MOE report template. • MOE reports will be submitted to the Commission's auditor. • Commission staff will report to the TAC and Commission regarding the outcome of the auditor's findings regarding agencies meeting the MOE base year levels. • Local agencies that do not meet the MOE base year may submit a request for special consideration, which will be presented to the Commission. The newly incorporated cities of Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar are eligible to receive Measure A Local Streets and Roads funding upon notice of participation in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program. These cities will be required to determine their respective MOE base year levels to meet the MOE certification requirement after the third year of incorporation. After reviewing the MOE base year submittals, staff has accepted the methodologies for some of the local agencies, as indicated in the attachment. For the remaining local agencies, staff will continue to work with them to resolve any inconsistencies or questions pertaining to their proposed base year level and supporting documentation. Once the MOE base year levels for the remaining agencies have been accepted, staff will return to the Commission for approval. Special Consideration Request Upon submitting the 2009 MOE base year level, Riverside requested special consideration, allowed under the MOE guidelines, for approval to establish its MOE requirement at the 1989 Measure A MOE base year level of $12,449,203 in lieu of the 2009 MOE base year level calculated as $16,997,233. The calculation method for determining the 2009 Measure A base year level is based on general fund expenditures for construction and maintenance activities during FY 2009/10. Riverside stated that because of the Riverside Renaissance program, a five-year infrastructure investment, expenditures used to calculate the 2009 MOE base year created a high MOE base year level that cannot be maintained since the Riverside Agenda Item 8C • 55 • • • Renaissance program was not intended to continue beyond the five-year investment period. Riverside also referenced that it exceeded the MOE base year requirement under the 1989 Measure A by more than $46 million, and that the $12.45 million amount more accurately reflects Riverside's historic level of discretionary expenditures. Staff recommends that the Commission consider these special circumstances cited by Riverside and determine the amount of the 2009 MOE base year level. It should be noted that the county of Riverside will continue its policy of not allocating general fund revenue for transportation expenditures. Therefore, as with the 1989 Measure A MOE, the county of Riverside will not have a MOE base year to meet. Attachments: 1) 2009 Measure A MOE Base Year Level Recommendations 2) Riverside's Request for Special Consideration Agenda Item 8C 56 • 2009 MEASURE A MOE BASE YEAR LEVELS 2009 MOE Base Year Levels Recommended f or Approval at Jul • Agency 1989 MOE Pr op osed 2009 MOE RCTC Adjustments Recommended 2009 MOE Comments Bannin g 164,325 316,181 - 316,181 Blythe 475,677 520,192 520,192 Canyon Lake 6,063 28,873 - 28,873 Co rona 1,784,399 2,207,944 256 2,208,200 Desert Hot Springs 57,586 75,147 - 75,147 Indian Wells 55,962 963,640 - 963,640 In dio 465,763 2,048,564 - 2,048,564 Lake Elsin ore 503,339 960,771 - 960,771 Moreno Valley 943,143 1,459,153 - 1,459,153 Murrieta 52,625 595,702 595,702 Norco 1,259 22,536 - 22,536 Perris 399,945 1,172,571 45,899 1,218,470 Riverside 12,449,203 16,997,233 (4,548,030) 12,449,203 Requesting special considerati on Temecula 2,785,034 1,431,799 - 1,431,799 New Cities Eastvale Jurupa Valley Menifee Wildomar N/A N/A N/A N/A MOE Base Year Levels Not Required Beaumont La Quinta Riv erside County 70,702 N/A 2009 MOE Base Year Levels - Pending N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Base year level required after third year of incorporation Base year level required after third year of incorporation Base year level required after third year of incorporation Base year level required after third year of incorporation City does not qualify for Measure A LSR funds. City does not quality for Measure A LSR funds No Discretionary GF expenditures Calimesa 7,294 Follow up with city Cathedral City 625,230 Follow upwith city Coachella 69,663 Follow up with city Hemet 1,183,605 Follow up with city Palm Desert 904,798 Follow up with city Palm Springs 1,892,584 Follow up with city Rancho Mirage 1,191,036 Follow up with city San Jacinto 143,347 Follow up with city i ATTACH APT 1 57 ATTACHMENT 2 • Office of the City Manager May 11, 2011 Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92501 itlf�© E fh) 1 MAY .i 2011 RIV E OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OM SSION Re: Request for Special Consideration for 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Requirements The City of Riverside is requesting the Riverside County Transportation Commission grant the City of Riverside special consideration and establish the City's 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement at the 1989 level of $12,449,203 in lieu of the proposed $16,997,223. As you know, renewal of Measure A in 2009 required resetting the MOE baseline which unfortunately occurred in the middle of the City of Riverside's Renaissance Program, which was a five year investment in the City's infrastructure. Consequently, the City's level of discretionary spending on street maintenance was at an unsustainable level during the years proposed by RCTC to be used to establish the MOE base year. The Renaissance program is now coming to an end and the City's discretionary expenditures for all programs including street maintenance, will be returning to historic levels. Unfortunately, the historic levels are below the Commission proposed 2009 MOE for the City. Since the original MOE in 1988, the City has exceeded the MOE requirement for discretionary street maintenance expenditures. Over the life of the original Measure, street maintenance expenditures totaled $295 million, or more than $46 million over the $249 million MOE requirement (see attached). The requested MOE amount more accurately reflects the City's historic level of discretionary expenditures for street maintenance and would still be more than five times greater than the next highest Agency's requirement, the City of Corona at $2,207,944. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 951-826-5552 or Tom Boyd at 951-826-5575. Sincerely, Deanna Lorson Assistant City Manager Attachment, Historic MOE vs expenditures cc Siobhan Foster, Public Works Director 3900 Main Skeet • Riverside, CA 92522 • 951.826.5553 • www.riversideca.gay X.29.18 58 City of Riverside Measure Discretionary Expenditures vs. Maintenance of Effort Requirements $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 v > ;��° co\° \° r,97\° ��� • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside county Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009/10 Transportation Development Act and Measure A Audit Results AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2009/10; and 2) Make a finding that the city of Hemet (Hemet) did not meet its maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement and request a response from Hemet regarding such noncompliance prior to taking any action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 2008, Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. (MHM) was selected to perform the financial and compliance audits and agreed -upon procedures (audits) of Riverside County's TDA claimants and Measure A recipients, respectively, except for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the city of Beaumont (Beaumont). The RTA and Beaumont audits were completed by their auditors. The FY 2009/10 audits represent the third and final year that MHM performed these audits for the Commission. The firm and the other agencies' auditors have completed the audits of and issued the audit reports for the local governments, non-profit agencies, and transit agencies that received TDA and Measure A funds. The following is a summary of the audits performed: Funding Type TDA Article 3 (bicycle and pedestrian projects) TDA Article 4 (transit) TDA Article 8 (local streets and roads) Measure A specialized transit Measure A local streets and roads Agenda Item 8D Type of Procedure Financial and compliance audit Financial and compliance audit Financial and compliance audit Agreed -upon procedures Agreed -upon procedures Total Performed 13 7 2 13 26 60 Following are highlights of the results of these audits: TDA Article 3 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects) • Seven jurisdictions have deferred revenues and/or fund balances aggregating $660,733 that has not been expended. Since funding is based on approved projects, remaining funds related to completed projects should be returned to the Commission. TDA Article 4 (Transit) • All transit operators met the fare ratio requirement. TDA Article 8 (Local Streets and Roads) • The city of Blythe (Blythe) has a fund deficit of $766,536, and the County of Riverside has a fund balance of $175,503. Article 8 funds have not been approved since 2007, as Palo Verde Valley TDA funds are used primarily for transit needs. In the Commission's most recent state triennial performance audit, a recommendation was made for the Commission to work with these agencies to resolve the use of the LTF funds in order to eliminate the need for the annual audits of these funds. Staff has discussed this with Blythe and the County of Riverside and expects these funds to be closed as of June 30, 2011. Measure A Specialized Transit • Questioned costs approximating $8,673 for amounts not considered capital expenses or not included in the Measure A specialized transit funding agreements for two agencies were identified. This reflects a significant decrease from the FY 2008/09 results, which included questioned costs of $57,000 related to five agencies. • Three agencies did not meet the required cash or in -kind match requirement; however, two of these agencies did receive cash and/or in -kind contributions, which in the aggregate exceeded the total match requirement. This reflects a significant decrease from the FY 2008/09 results, which included five agencies that did not meet the matching requirements. • Four agencies receiving Measure A and federal funds did not have certain written policies required by the federal funds; however, no instances of noncompliance were noted. • Five agencies had excess funds approximating $19,406 as of June 30, 2010, that the Commission may request be returned; however, the excess funds of $1,196 for one of the agencies included federal revenues that should have been recorded in FY 2010/11. Agenda Item 8D • 61 • • • Measure A Local Streets and Roads • Hemet did not meet its MOE requirement, and there was no excess MOE available to offset the current year deficiency. Hemet may request special consideration under the Commission's MOE guidelines adopted July 2010. Staff recommends that the Commission make a finding regarding this noncompliance with Measure A and request a response from Hemet regarding such noncompliance prior to taking any action. Should Hemet not request special consideration and/or the Commission not grant special consideration, Hemet will lose its Measure A local streets and roads funding, pursuant to Measure A, beginning in FY 2011/12. The city of Perris and Blythe did not meet the MOE requirement; however, these cities had sufficient carryover MOE balances to offset the current year deficiency. • Four cities have fund balances that are in excess of three years of revenues. The Commission policy suggests that such amounts should not exceed three years. • Six cities have recorded expenditures, including overhead, that were not included in the five-year capital improvement plans (CIPs) submitted to and approved by the Commission. The cities may submit amendments to the CIPs, which may be administratively approved by the Executive Director. Two of these cities recorded overhead costs in excess of 8% of revenues. The Commission has a policy that overhead should not exceed 8% of revenues. Staff is in the process of resolving the significant matters and considering changes to policies and/or program administration. Attached is the summary of transportation and transit fund operations and related audit results for the various types of TDA (Articles 3, 4, and 8) and Measure A (specialized transit and local streets and roads) funding. Each schedule provides information for each claimant and recipient regarding the revenues, expenditures/expenses, and change in fund balance/net assets for the year ended June 30, 2010, and other financial and compliance information. Attachments: 1) FY 2009/10 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule 2) FY 2009/10 Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule 3) FY 2009/10 Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule 4) FY 2009/10 Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule 5) FY 2009/10 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Agenda Item 8D 62 • • Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule Year Ended J une 30, 2010 ATTACH MENT 1 • Cathedral Desert Hot Moreno Palm County of B anning Beaumont City Coachella Corona Springs Hemet Valley Springs Perris Riverside San Jacinto Riverside Re venues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 3 Other $ 45,000 $ 1,302 $ 1,229 $ - $ - $ - $90,000 $ 11,659 $ 124,445 $ 60,000 $ - $ - $225,777 30 Interest income (612) - 14,883 23,217 92 5,983 Total revenues 44,388 1,302 1,259 90,000 26,542 124,445 83,217 92 231,760 Total expenditures 264,237 1,302 1,229 45,995 26,628 79,152 225,777 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (219,849) 30 44,005 26,542 97,817 4,065 92 5,983 Transfers in (out) 130,487 - 30,696 (376,985) 41,922 4,578 Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures (89,362) 30 - 74,701 (350,443) 139,739 4,065 4,670 5,983 Prior period adjustment 323 - 30,032 (139,739) Fund balances at beginning of year 13,334 - (30,032) (74,701) 350,443 4,065 Fund balances at end of year ( ) - (4,578) 20,307 $(75,705) $ - $ 30 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ _ $ - $ - $ 92 $ 26,290 Deferred revenues at end of year $ 88,750 $ 84,588 $ 1,547 $ - $ - $ 3,091 $ - $ - $ - $ - $99,679 $ 16,713 $415,658 Source: 2010 Financial Statements Section 99234 7/5/2011 63 • ATTACHMENT 2 • Transp ortati on Development Act Article 4 Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2010 Banning Beaumont C oron a Riverside PWTA SunLin e RTA Total operating revenues $ 124,107 $ 121,955 $ 412,928 $ 327,625 $ 63,036 $ 3,412,795 $ 9,286,455 Operating expenses: Depreciation and amortization Other operating expen ses Total operating expenses Operating loss Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Grants: Local Transportation Funds 1,110,237 1,078,650 1,147,822 2,469,723 764,872 12,243,332 17,662,914 State Transit Assistance 196,010 184,502 1,817 84,255 167,500 396,938 597,972 Federal 473,602 36,655 5,088,142 27,165,317 Measure A specialized transit - 3,714,000 1,014,861 Proposition 18 12,154 102,783 1,075,142 26,403 1,323,542 Other - 300,354 3,135,544 Interest income 8,284 258 10,053 47,839 2,770 25,049 108,344 Interest expense (32,384) - Transfers in (out) - 439,666 14,000 (298,917) Gain (loss) on sale of property 1,856 - (1,422) 8,573 4,600 (25,611) 13,014 Other 11,132 - - 16,934 44,789 1,351,261 Total nonoperating revenue (expense) 1,339,673 1,703,076 1,748,655 3,706,737 984,531 21,768,607 52,073,852 Net increase (decrease) 211,012 439,823 (146,723) 652,449 138,415 (156,767) (7,388,921) Prior period adjustment (517) 354,834 Net assets at beginning of year 89,237 (232,566) 1,991,307 1,487,108 474,316 37,063,832 37,843,378 Net assets at end of year $ 299,732 $ 207,257 $ 1,844,584 $ 2,139,557 $ 612,731 $ 37,261,899 $ 30,454,457 Deferred revenue at end of year: Operating $ 73,207 $ - $ 52,573 $ - $ 84,806 $ 123,862 $ 3,751,819 Capital 936,037 312,985 293,101 1,731,761 478,061 6,109,248 10,056,089 Total deferred revenue at end of year $ 1,009,244 $ 312,985 $ 345,674 $ 1,731,761 $ 562,867 $ 6,233,110 $ 13,807,908 Required fare ratio Actual fare ratio 32,652 48,882 277,095 405,652 61,469 4,079,035 17,356,763 1,220,116 1,336,326 2,031,211 2,976,261 847,683 21,259,134 51,392,465 1,252,768 1,385,208 2,308,306 3,381,913 909,152 25,338,169 68,749,228 (1,128,661) (1,263,253) (1,895,378) (3,054,288) (846,116) (21,925,374) (59,462,773) 10,00% 10.00% 11.76% 27. 24% 20. 00% 10.00% 10.00% 20.82% 13.47% 13.05% 18.18% 16.85% 18.18% 25.3 '/% Fare ratio compliance status Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Source: 2010 Financial Statements Note 1 The audits for RTA and Beaumont were completed by other audito rs hired by each entity. Section 99260 7/5/2011 64 • • ATTACHMENT 3 • Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule Year ended June 30, 2010 County of Blythe Riverside Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 8 $ $ Other revenues Interest income Total revenues Total expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures Transfers in (out) Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures Prior period adjustments Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Source: 2010 Financial Statements 356,465 2,068 2,068 (356,465) 415,483 2,068 59,018 2,068 (825,554) 173,435 $(766,536) $ 175,503 Note: Article 8 allocations for Western County and Coachella Valley ended in 1993 and 1987, respectively, as available LTF funds are now used to meet transit needs. Article 8 allocations for Palo Verde Valley are subject to an annual unmet needs hearing. City and County have been advised to clear deficit and spend fund balance, respectively, in FY 2011 in order to need for annual audit.) Section 99400 (a) 7/5/2011 65 • Measure A Specialized Tra nsit Schedule Year Ended J une 30, 2010 ATTACHMENT 4 5 Boys & Riverside Girls Club County of Friends of Inland Independent Regional Blindness Southwest Care Moreno AIDS City of Living Medical Volunteer Support* County Care -A -Van Connexxus CASA Valley Project` Norco* Partnership* Center Center* Operating revenues: Measure A $ 60,159 $ 237,366 $ 322,008 $ 225,000 $ 44,618 $ 58,500 $ 69,926 $ 74,852 $ 414,940 $ 176,876 $ 132,163 In -kind match 23,261 39,206 22,622 120,645 6,022 - 45,489 697,777 83,793 Cash match: federal JARC/NF 100,265 - 69,677 18,731 - 101,483 Cash match: other revenue 45,078 118,154 69,102 103,626 - 37,084 34,398 267,803 18,951 Total operating revenues 205,502 378,781 499,993 369,979 165,263 101,606 104,324 120,341 1,112,717 546,162 234,907 Operating expenses -in kind 23,261 39,206 22,622 120,645 6,022 - 45,489 697,777 83,793 Operating expenses -cash 204,306 468,653 442,160 342,300 44,619 94,938 104,324 71,649 419,967 536,409 162,915 Capital expenditure s - 12,750 5,057 9,371 Total operating expenses/capital expenditures 204,306 491,914 494,116 369,979 165,264 100,960 104,324 126,509 1,117,744 536,409 246,708 Change in net assets 1,196 (113,133) 5,877 - (1) 646 - (6,168) (5,027) 9,753 (11,801) Prior period adjustment - Net assets at beginning of year _ 8,114 - Net assets at end of year $ 1,196 $ (105,019) $ 5,877 $ Overhead costs 2 6,961 - 11,644 (1) $ 646 $ - $ (6,166) $ 1,934 $ 9,753 $ (157) $ 14,853 $ 31,394 $ - $ 27,406 $ 2,178 $ - $ 7,771 $ 3,840 $ 15,309 $ - $ 13,742 Match requirement -cash $ - $ 113,271 $ 153,428 $ 94,621 $ - $ 32,760 $ 59,860 $ - $ 23,490 $ 97,377 $ 18,951 Match requirement -in kind $ 36,925 $ 23,250 $ 24,072 $ 20,400 $ 22,309 $ 4,900 $ - $ 38,560 $ 152,811 $ - $ 80,793 Actual match -cash $ 40,107 $ 118,154 $ 138,779 $ 103,626 $ - $ 37,084 $ 34,398 $ - $ - $ 267,803 $ 18,951 Actual match -in kind $ - $ 23,261 $ 39,206 $ 22,622 $ 120,645 $ 6,022 S - $ 45,489 $ 697,777 $ - $ 83,793 Did not meet in. kind but received cash match instead M atch requirement compliance status Source: 2010 Financial Statements Information based on draft reports. Measure A Specialized Transit Met Did not meet. cash match but total cash and In -kind exceeded requirement Met Met Met Did Not Meet Cash Met Met Cash match requirement related to Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley programs, which are not subj ect to these procedures. Met Met 7/5/2011 66 • • ATTACHMENT • 5 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2010 Canyon J Banning Bea umont Galimesa Lake Corona Hemet Lake Elsinor e Menifee Moreno Vall ey Murrieta Norco P enis Riverside San Jacinto Tem ecula Wlldomar Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations. Measure A $ 354,705 $ 9.916 $ 108,069 $ 120,057 $ 2,534.758 $ 1.049.869 $ 794,161 $ 827.602 $ 2,513,443 $ 1,250,773 $ 426.847 $ 561,471 $ 4,657.070 $ 444.743 $ 1,814,527 $ 380,106 State reimbu rsements - 86 .134 - - _ Reimbursements from regional arterial program/other - 1.176.643 44,158 _- - Other revenues - - - 1.196 - - - 3.278,351 374,594 Interest income 14,336 4,066 7,048 197,060 39,028 17,810 11.156 214.968 225.482 20,305 30,719 296,910 14.477 100 ,960 1,287 Other financing sources -transfers in - - - - - - 376,985 Total revenues 369,041 9,916 1.374,912 127,105 2,777.172 1.088,897 811 .971 838,758 6,383,747 1,476,255 447 .152 966,784 4,953.980 459,220 1.915,487 381.393 Expenditure s and other fin ancin g uses, Constructio n an d maintenance 17,133 27,138 1.468.243 - 3,219,808 981.655 1,147,111 242.139 7,916,579 1.998,557 100.767 1 ,920.083 597,275 345,105 Othe r - - - 12,003 13 .272 Administrative overhead 10,000 29 ,995 43,330 3 ,289 Capita l outlay - Ov erhead allocations - 8,241,439 - Debt service: - 60,976 - Principal - _ Interest - - - - - _ - - Tra nsfers out 189.172 - - - 2593 - - 726,002 504,408 2 .375,574 70,000 Total expen ditures an d other financin g uses 206,305 27,138 1,478,243 - 3,252,396 981,655 1,147,111 242.139 7,959,909 2,736,562 114,039 1,923,372 8.241,439 565 .384 2,972.849 415,105 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures a nd other financing uses 162,736 (17,222) (103.331) 127.105 (475,224) 107,242 (335,140) 596,619 (1,576,162) (1,260.307) 333,113 (956,588) (3.287.459) (106,164) (1,057,362) (33,712) Prior period adjustment/rounding (29,512) (91,483) - 3,117 482 (37,118) 3.573 Fund balances at beginning of year 1,194,319 46,734 918.381 554,934 8 .698 .362 3 .720,955 352,854 903,289 13.140,762 10.105,071 2,983.342 3,705,067 13,769,067 1,911 .069 8.417.999 542 .512 Fund balances at end of year 0 1,357. 055 $ - $ 723,567 $ 682,039 $ 8,223.138 $ 3.828.197 $ 20,831 $ 1.500.390 $ 11,564,600 $ 8.807,646 5 3,316.455 8 2,748 479 $ 10,481,608 $ 1.804,905 5 7,360.637 $ 512,373 Components of fun d balances: Reserv ed for encum brances $ $ - $ - $ - $ ' $ 952,254 $ $ $ 1 ,550,473 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,168,848 5 - $ 212.713 $ Reserved for prepaid items - - - 176,348 Restricted/Reserved fo r spe cific projects - 8,223,138 Reserv ed for continuing a ppro priations Designated for specific/future projects or cent approp - - - 8.465,530 6,136,412 Unreserved, un design ated 1,357,055 - 723,657 682,039 - 2,875,933 20,831 1,500,390 1,548,597 8 ,807,646 3.316.455 2,748,479 1,804.905 7.147.924 512,373 Total fund balances by component $ 1,357,055 $ - $ 723. 657 $ 682,039 $ 8. 223,138 $ 3.828.197 $ 20,831 $ 1 .500.390 $ 11,564600 $ 8,807,646 0 3.316.455 $ 2,748,479 $ 10,481,608 $ 1.804 .905 $ 7,360.637 $ 512,373 Fund balan ce by year received: 2010 $ 369,041 $ - $ 723,657 $ 127,105 0 2,777,172 $ 1.088,897 $ 20,631 $ 838 ,758 $ 6,383,747 $ 1,476,255 $ 447.152 $ 966,784 $ 4,953,980 $ 459,220 $ 1.915487 $ 381,393 2009 988,014 - - 268,320 4,483,930 1,695,132 - 661,632 5,180,853 2,394,502 726,730 1,698,150 5,527,628 1,216 .924 3,052,874 130,980 2008 - - - 286,614 962,036 1,044,168 - - 3,558,853 975,658 83,545 - 128,761 2,392,276 2007 8 Prior - - - 1 378036 1;16 6915 - Total fu nd balances by year received $ 1,357,055 5 - $ 723.657 $ 682 039 $ 8 223 138 $ 3 829 197 5 20 831 $ 1 500 390 5 11 564 600 $ 8 807 646 $ 7 316,455 5 2.748 479 $ 10,481.608 $ 1 804 .905 $ 7.360.637 $ 512.373 Cash and in vestments Amoun t of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status $ 1,283,869 $ - $ 324,950 $ 652,146 $ 7. 823,936 5 4,154,421 $ 1,165,650 $ 1 .275 .367 $ 10,380,529 $ 8,621,501 $ 3.221,325 $ 2,758,546 5 10,052,934 $ 82 ,921 $ 6,886,187 $ 396,054 $ 3,448,851 $ 11,920,647 $ 69,938 $ 34,946 $ 34. 539 061 $ (328,893) $ 12 382 282 N/A $ 29 ,833,306 5 732 ,692 $ 4 .027.689 $ 13,933,865 5 51 928 188 5 15 640 303 $ 443 .881 ICA M et Met Me t Met M et ,Jot met Met N/A Met Met Met Met win -Use of Met Met Met N/A dxvcss Sou rce: 2010 Financial Statements Notes' Measure A Loca l Streets Roads 1 The audit for Beaumon t was completed by o ther auditors hired by the city. 2 Menifee and Wildo mer were recen tly in corporated, en d MOE to be determine d following three ye ars of operations. 1 of 2 7/5/2011 67 • Measure A Local Stre ets and Ro ads Schedule Yea r ended June 30, 2010 PaT O'V eTde C oachella Valley Coachella Vall ey L V alley J Reven ues: Inte rgovernmental allocations: Measure A State reimbursements Reimbursemen ts from regional arterial program/other Other reven ues Interest income Other financin g sou rces -transfers in Total reven ues Expenditures and other financing uses: Construction and maintenance Other Administrativ e overhead Capital outlay Overhead allocation s Debt serv ice: Principal In terest Transfers out Total expenditures and other financin g uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and other financin g uses Cathedral Desert Hot 1 County ofI City Coachella Spri ngs Indian Wells India Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Blythe 1 Riverside I $ 1.099.503 5 370,571 $ 327,206 $ 19$,793 S 1,287 .916 $ 2,110,411 $ 1,508,545 $ 744,960 $ 910,424 5 6,592.023 - - - - 1495,263 1.086,985 526,813 1,433,016 - - - - - - - (13,466) 2,997 1,023 3,098 16 5,212 302,571 105,242 113 .729 16,322 139,351 17,767 4.233 - - - 1,120,267 371,594 330,304 195,809 2.792.624 3,499,967 2,127,134 2.291 .705 926,746 6,731,374 1.580.001 - 209.882 - 2 .275.682 455,284 2,302.931 2,904,240 1 ,730,286 976 - 43,163 - 87,961 396,830 18,833 1,667,962 396,830 229,691 (547.695) (25,236) 100,613 400,376 - - - 273.006 - - - - 195.814 - - - - 381,020 - 195,814 2.949,064 455,284 2,302,931 2,904,240 424,183 1.730,286 (5) (156 .440) 3,044,683 (175,797) (612.535) 502,563 5,001,088 Prior period a dju stment/rounding 24,766 t -• 205,539 - - - Fund balances at beginning of year 529.296 508. 398 513,887 5 505,281 15,180,444 7.795 ,547 4,487,493 2,372,967 10 454,322 Fund balances at end of year 5 (18.399) $ 507,928 5 614.501 $ - $ 348.841 $ 18.225,127 5 7 ,825 ,289 $ 3,874.958 $ 2 .875.530 $ 15,455,410 Components of fund balances, Reserve d fo r encumbrances Reserve d fo r prepaid items Restricted/Reserved for specific projects Reserved for continuing appropriations Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp Unreserved, un designated Total fund balances by compon ent $ - $ - 5 - 5 (18. 399) 507,928 614,501 $ (18,399) $ 507,928 S 614,501 5 $ 253.986 $ - $ 30,641 $ 17,971,141 14,244, 899 1,380,000 • - 348,841 - (6,419,610) 2 .464,317 2,875,530 15455,410 $ 348,841 $ 18,225.127 $ 7,825,289 $ 3,874,958 $ 2,875,530 $ 15455,410 2010 $ - 5 371,594 $ 330,304 $ - $ 348.841 $ 3,499,967 S 2,127,134 $ 2,291,705 $ 926,746 $ 6,731,374 2009 - 136,334 284,197 - - 2,433.714 2,554,832 1,406,014 736,064 8,724,036 2008 - - - - - 3,400,321 3 143.323 177,239 850,588 ' i. '' 2007.& Prior - - - 8,891,125 . 362132 Total fund balances by year re ceived - $ 507. 928 $ 614, 501 5 - 5 348,841 5 18225,127 5 7,825,289 $ 3 .874,958 $ 2,875.530 $ 15,455 410 Cash an d in vestments Amount of Excess MOE at end o1 year MOE compliance status Source: 2010 Financial Statements - 5 542,780 5 531,021 $ - 5 306.311 $ 17. 537,845 5 7400,964 5 3.738.894 $ 2,648,077 $ 14410,391 $ 7.115.523 5 11,861,068 5 1,043,676 5 23, 554, 702 5 46,247. 415 5 120,211.183 5 38,876,520 5 31 ,843 .038 $ 4 ,447,645 WA M et Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met with Use or EssesS Measu re A Local Streets Roads 2 of 2 7/5/2011 • IP8 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Callan Management Company dba Western Area Security Services WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-25-071-05, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 06-25-071-00, with Callan Management Company dba Western Area Security Services (WASS) to provide security guard services at the five Commission -owned commuter rail stations in an amount not to exceed $300,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 2006 meeting, and after a competitive procurement process, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 06-25-071-00 to WASS to provide security guard services for each of the five Commission -owned commuter rail stations (Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, North Main Corona, Pedley, and West Corona). The initial term of the agreement was for three years and two one-year options to be exercised at the Commission's sole discretion. Both option years have been exercised by the Commission, and the agreement will expire on June 30, 2011. The executive director approved a three-week contract extension, through July 21, under Amendment No. 4 in order to ensure guard services are in place during the Commission approval cycle. In anticipation of the expiring security guard services contract with WASS, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) on March 1. The RFP deadline was April 4 and an unusually high volume of proposals were received - 23 in all. Under normal Agenda Item 8E 69 conditions, the time period allowed by staff for the completion of the new procurement would be sufficient. However, due to the high number of proposals received, more time is necessary to complete the evaluation process. All of the proposals received by the April 4 deadline that were determined to be responsive and responsible were evaluated by the evaluation committee and a short list of those firms earning the highest total evaluation scores was established. Interviews with the short listed firms were recently completed and the evaluation committee has requested best and final offers (BAFOs) from these firms. Once the BAFOs have been received and analyzed, the evaluation committee will complete its final scoring and develop a recommendation for award. In addition to allowing additional time for completion of the procurement process, the proposed three-month contract extension will afford staff sufficient time, if necessary, to transition guard services to a new firm. For the foregoing reasons, staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 5, which will extend the WASS contract by three months, ending October 21, 2011; thereby allowing staff sufficient time to complete the recent security guard services evaluation process and, if necessary, transition to a new security guard firm. Amendment No. 5 will increase the total contract value amount by $300,000 from $5,401,401 to $5,701,401. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $300,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 244001/244002/244003/244004/244006 81006 103 24 81006 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Maid v jAmizfi Date: 06/15/11 Attachment: Standard Form Amendment (Professional Services) Agenda Item 8E • • 70 • Agreement No. 06-25-071-05 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY SERVICES WITH CALLAN MANAGEMENT CO., INC. D/B/A WESTERN AREA SECURITY SERVICES 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement for Security Services is made and entered into as of this day of 2011, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and CALLAN MANAGEMENT CO., INC., a California corporation D/B/A WESTERN AREA SECURITY SERVICES ("Consultant"). 2. RECITALS • • 2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Agreement dated September 25, 2006 for the purpose of providing security services for the five (5) Commuter Rail Stations in Riverside County owned and operated by the Commission (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 1 to the Master Agreement, dated July 1, 2009, for the purpose of providing additional compensation in order to compensate for the shortfall in the Original Term, extending the Original Term, and providing additional compensation for the extended term. 2.3 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 2 to the Master Agreement, dated July 1, 2010, for the purpose of extending the term of the agreement, and providing additional compensation for an Extended Term of twelve (12) months commencing on July 1, 2010 and ending on June 30, 2011 (the "Second Extended Term"), for an amount that is not exceed One Million Two Hundred Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Two Dollars and Sixty Four Cents ($1,200,262.64) 2.4 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 3 to the Master Agreement, dated January 25, 2011, for the 71 • purpose of developing a Rai► Security Database Application in order to streamline reporting requirements. 2.5 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 4 to the Master Agreement, dated June 21, 2011, for the purpose of extending the term and providing additional compensation for the continued provision of security guard services. 2.6 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to extend the term and to provide additional compensation for the continued provision of security guard services for the commuter rail stations. 3. TERMS 3.1 The term of the Master Agreement, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, shall be extended for three months ending on October 21, 2011, unless earlier terminated. 3.2 Compensation for Services performed pursuant to this Amendment No. 5 shall not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) and the total contract value of the Master Agreement, as previously amended and as amended by this Amendment No. 5 shall not exceed Five Million Seven Hundred Thousand Four Hundred One Dollars and Twenty Cents ($5,701,401.20). 3.3 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 5, all provisions of the Master Agreement and all previous Amendments, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. [Signatures on Following Page] 72 • SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 06-25-071-05 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the date first herein above written. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CALLAN MANAGEMENT CO., INC. D/B/A WESTERN AREA SECURITY SERVICES Signature By: Gregory S. Pettis, Name Chair Title APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST: By: By: Best, Best & Krieger General Counsel Its: Secretary 73 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Vendsight, Inc. to Provide a Station Advertising Revenue Program WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 11-24-029-00 to Vendsight, Inc. to provide services associated with the development, management, and maintenance of a station advertising revenue program for a five-year term, and one five-year option to extend the agreement; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including the option term, on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On July 14, 2010, the Commission approved Resolution No. 10-011 adopting a commercial advertising policy applicable to all Riverside County Metrolink stations. The intention of the Commission was to generate revenue from the available space of its Metrolink stations to offset increasing maintenance costs. Accordingly, the Commission sought a competitive solution to meet these requirements. In August, staff responded to the resolution by drafting a scope of services for a turnkey advertising revenue program and issued Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 11-24-029-00. The awarded firm was to plan, establish, solicit, place, administer, manage, and maintain advertisements for the space available at the Commission -owned Metrolink stations. Both content guidelines and discretionary approval authority remains with the Commission pursuant to the adopted policy and terms of contract. Proposers were encouraged to visit each station to gain perspective of the available advertising space. Agenda Item 8F 74 Procurement Process The procurement of a station advertising revenue program was especially challenging because the Commission has never conducted a competitive procurement for these services, does not have existing advertising sites in place at the stations, the ad performance and market area are untested, and the current advertising market is suffering due to the economic downturn. Additionally, recent advertising solicitations by local agencies have been unsuccessful in generating any interest from the market. In an effort to refine the scope of services and to maximize competition and revenue, staff arranged a series of meetings with several advertising firms that would likely, in a stable economic environment, submit a proposal. Based on these discussions, it was apparent that the biggest hurdle for the advertising firms is recouping the sizeable capital investment required to place the initial advertising program infrastructure. Since the Commission does not have existing ad sites in place and ad performance in the local market area is untested, it was unclear whether firms would be willing to make the capital outlay necessary to establish a start up program. Staff issued a competitive solicitation to test the local market. RFP No. 11-24-029-00 was released by staff and advertised on January 14. A pre -proposal conference and job walk of the Downtown Riverside commuter rail station was held on January 27. Staff responded to all requests for clarifications submitted by potential proposers. One firm, Vendsight, Inc. (Vendsight), submitted a proposal prior to the stated deadline date. Staff reached out to several advertising firms to determine why these firms did not submit a proposal in response to the RFP. The following reasons were given — experiencing an advertising recession, too much risk, and insufficient staff. The proposal Vendsight submitted was determined by staff to be a responsive and responsible proposal. Vendsight's proposal was evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. Scoring was based entirely upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Negotiations with Vendsight were conducted over the course of several meetings, discussions, and correspondence, whereby contract terms were finalized. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Vendsight will provide the intended turnkey advertising revenue program, at no cost to the Commission, and the Commission will receive approximately 25 percent of the total gross sales calculated prior to any deductions for maintenance, vandalism, and other program costs and expenses. After implementation, the vendor anticipates annual revenue would be up to $50,000. The contractor will comply with all requirements set forth in the advertising policy including prohibition of advertising alcohol and tobacco products. Additionally, the Commission will retain the discretion to utilize 10 percent of the advertising space for its own messages and information. Attached are photos of the anticipated Agenda Item 8F • 75 • • • installations. The program could be expanded with Vendsight at the four new stations following the implementation of new service on the Perris Valley Line. Based on the foregoing procurement process, staff recommends the award of Agreement No. 11-24-029-00 to Vendsight for station advertising revenue program services at the five Commission -owned commuter rail stations for a five-year term, and one five-year option to extend the agreement. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13+ Amount: $0 $100,000 (Revenues) Source of Funds: Other Revenues Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 103 24 42003 (Other Revenues) Fiscal Procedures Approved: \PL/4u44,1,1t, Date: 06/15/11 Attachments: 1) Commercial Advertising Policy 2) Vendsight Photos 3) Standard Form Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 8F 76 ATTACHMENT 1 • • RESOLUTION NO. 10-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING A COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING POLICY AND CONTENT GUIDELINES; AN INCIDENTAL USE POLICY COVERING CONCESSION STANDS, MERCHANDISING AND INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS FOR COMMISSION OWNED FACILITIES AND PROPERTY; AND A REVISED NON-COMMERCIAL FREE SPEECH PERMIT POLICY WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") owns real property, provides bus and commuter rail service throughout Riverside County and currently operates the following five commuter rail stations: (1) Downtown Riverside Station; (2) Pedley Station; (3) La Sierra Station; (4) West Corona Station; and (5) North Main Corona Station; and WHEREAS, Commission has designated certain spaces in its commuter rail stations for non-commercial free speech purposes, while other spaces are appropriate for incidental uses of its real property including commercial advertising and other revenue generating purposes; and WHEREAS, for those spaces that have been authorized as non-commercial free speech zones —all leafleting, solicitation and political campaign activities shall be conducted by permit and in accordance with this Policy; and WHEREAS, Commission has adopted reasonable permit requirements to ensure that the number and location of people involved in such leafleting, solicitation and/or political campaign activities at each station do not impede, limit or restrict optimum pedestrian traffic or intended public transportation uses of its commuter rail stations; and WHEREAS, for those spaces that have been authorized for commercial advertising and other revenue -generating uses, such incidental uses shall be allowed only so long as the following interests of Commission are preserved: (1) a safe, convenient and pleasant environment for users of Commission property, which includes maximizing use of its commuter rail stations by attracting and maintaining the patronage of the public; (2) protection of any minors who use Commission stations; and (3) the avoidance of any potential identification of the Commission with the point of view or message of the commercial advertisement placed by a third party; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further identified potential additional revenues sources beyond commercial advertising such as concessions and Commission -related merchandising programs to supplement existing operational and capital funds; and WHEREAS, these new programs are intended to supplement existing revenues generated from current fare rates and non -operating subsidies; and 77 WHEREAS, this Policy authorizes the Executive Director to implement any reasonable time, place, manner restrictions necessary to maintain public safety, aesthetic standards and the promotion of public transportation; and WHEREAS, the Commission adopts the viewpoint neutral and content -based commercial advertising guidelines as contained herein in order to provide direction to third parties seeking to use the Commission's designated advertising spaces; and WHEREAS, by adopting these guidelines, the Commission does not intend or propose to permit advertising that individually or commercially would cause any real or personal property owned or controlled by Commission to become a public forum for the dissemination, debate, and/or discussion of public issues unless permitted under the Commission's non-commercial free speech policy; and WHEREAS, the commercial advertising policy applies to advertising placed by a third party on any Commission property and does not prohibit the Commission from placing advertisements and announcements related to its own or other governmental services, programs, or events not in violation of the viewpoint neutral content -based restrictions contained herein; and WHEREAS, the sale of newspapers, food and beverages shall be regulated under separate policies. The sale of non -Commission merchandise except for approved concession vendors is strictly prohibited at the commuter rail stations; and WHEREAS, any advertising on bus shelters and benches within the public rights -of -way shall be governed by the then -current policies of the applicable jurisdiction. This Policy shall only apply to Commission owned real property and otherwise the commuter rail stations above. WHEREAS, the following Policy and Guidelines will be reviewed biennially (every two years) to reflect the current policies of the Commission and to reflect changes in the trends of social and economic acceptance and appropriateness of various forms of advertising and concessions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners as follows: Section 1. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this resolution by this reference. Section 2. Commission hereby adopts a "Commercial Advertising Policy and Guidelines" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. Commission hereby adopts a "Incidental Use Policy" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. Commission hereby adopts a "Non -Commercial Free Speech Policy" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. • • 78 • Section 5. Commission reserves the right to modify both Exhibits A, B and/or C at any time as may be required. Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director to revise and enforce the provisions of both policies. Commission staff shall post revisions to either Policy on Commission's website at least thirty (30) calendar days before it becomes effective. Section 6. The Chairperson of the Board shall sign this Resolution and the Clerk of the Board shall certify the adoption thereof. This Resolution shall be effective on the date of its adoption. Section 7. The Board of Commissioners hereby finds that adoption of this Resolution is not subject to CEQA and authorizes and directs Commission staff as designated by the Executive Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk of Riverside County and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) days following adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 2010. Bob Buster, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission • • ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 79 • • • EXHIBIT "A" COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING POLICY AND CONTENT GUIDELINES A. POLICY STATEMENT The purpose of this Commercial Advertising Policy is to establish viewpoint -neutral and content -based guidelines that govern Commission's display of acceptable commercial advertisements. The display of commercial advertising is not intended to provide a general public forum for free speech purposes but rather to retain use of Commission property in a proprietary capacity. Allowing commercial advertising in certain locations on Commission property as a means of fee generation is a responsible incidental economic use of Commission's capital investments. Advertising placed by any third party (including vendors) on Commission property is not authorized unless permitted in accordance with this Policy and guidelines and a contract approved by the Commission. Issuance of any license agreements and related contracts must be in accordance with Commission's procurement policies. Commission reserves the right to reject any advertising based upon its guidelines for acceptable advertising content as outlined in this Policy. Locations for commercial advertising may include but are not limited to: commuter rail stations, parking structures, and fixed outdoor displays on any Commission -owned property. This Policy also provides guidelines as to the use of information signage space. Notwithstanding, Commission recognizes that advertising on its own properties is a critical means of communication with its patrons and users —including the adequate dissemination of transit and safety related information. Some informational signage space is currently available at the stations and reserved exclusively for Commission information. B. DEFINITION OF TERMS Key terms are defined as follows: • "Added Value Materials" - Informational advertising which offers a tangible benefit to patrons as a means of rewarding and retaining customers (i.e., a money- saving discount). • "Commercial advertisements" - Advertisements that (1) have as its primary purpose the promotion of a commercial transaction, such as the sale of real or personal property, services, entertaining and/or dining, which is offered to the public generally and (2) are not otherwise prohibited under the viewpoint neutral content -based restrictions below. Such shall include services and messages of charitable, educational, government, and not for profit institutions subject to compliance with the Commercial Advertising Content Guidelines. • "Cross -Promotion" - A cooperative partnership in which two or more entities work together with the goal of jointly promoting their respective services. 80 • "Governmental Entities" - Public entities specifically created by government action. • "Map Cases" - Fixed cases in Commission Rail stations. Used to display Commission Rail System Maps and provide information on fares, routes, safety, sales locations, service changes and other matters relevant to the use of the Metrolink System. • "Non -Commercial Advertising" - A public service announcement, event notification, political statement or other message which does not have as its primary purpose to propose a commercial transaction. These types of advertisements that otherwise deviate from the Commercial Advertising Content Guidelines will not be accepted. C. COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING CONTENT GUIDELINES I. Revenue-Generating/Commercial Advertising In accordance with the revenue -generating purpose of this Policy, the Commission shall accept only commercial advertisements. Non-commercial advertisements will not be accepted unless it is considered informational material as described below. Any person seeking to advertise, leaflet or solicit for political purposes are not covered by this Policy. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Commission expressly reserves its proprietary right to display notices and advertisements relating to Commission's transit operations. The Commission may, but is not required, to contract with outside vendors to sell and display commercial advertising within the commuter rail stations and otherwise on its property for the sole purpose of generating revenue. Commission may sell or post advertising directly. Any vendors responsible for soliciting and posting commercial advertisements to third parties shall be authorized under contracts awarded by Commission through a competitive bidding process to the extent required under the Commission's procurement policy. All such contracts shall comply with these guidelines and following requirements: • Locations for commercial advertising on Commission property or rail right of way may include, but are not limited to: dedicated map cases, billboards, banners, bike lockers, vending machine shelters, fixed outdoor displays, electronic signage, and any other locations approved by the Commission. • Safety, aesthetic considerations, customer convenience, and Commission's need to convey transit -related and emergency information to passengers will take precedence over revenue generation. • Quantity, quality, and placement of all advertising will be controlled by and subject to the specific approval of Commission. • • • 81 • • • • Commission reserves the right to review any proposed advertisement in advance and reject any proposed advertisement which does not meet the Commission's standards as set forth in this Policy. Each entity wishing to purchase advertising space shall submit an application in such form as approved by the Executive Director or his/ her designee, which shall include the proposed content of the advertisement. Such shall not prohibit contracting the sale and management of such advertising space to a third party pursuant to Commission's procurement policies and procedures. Before any advertisement is rejected, it shall be referred to the Executive Director or his/her designee for Commission for appropriate action and a final decision. The following viewpoint -neutral content -based limitations for third party commercial advertising are established as follows: 2. Alcohol and Tobacco Advertising Advertising of all alcohol and tobacco products is prohibited. 3. Non -Commercial Advertising Commission does not accept advertising from non -governmental entities if the subject matter and intent of said advertising is non-commercial and deviates from these guidelines. Generally, acceptable advertising must promote for sale, lease or other form of financial benefit a product, service, event or other property interest in primarily a commercial manner for primarily a commercial purpose. Exemption: Governmental entities, meaning public entities specifically created by government action, may purchase or negotiate arrangements for advertising space for messages that advance specific government purposes. It is Commission's intent that government advertising will not be used for comment on issues of valid public debate. 4. Other Subject Matter Restrictions Advertising may not be displayed if its content: • Promotes, condones or relates to an illegal activity or which might be considered as derogatory toward any aspect of the law enforcement profession; or • Contains language which is obscene, vulgar, profane, or otherwise offensive to generally accepted sensibility and taste; or • Contains images, copy or concepts that actively denigrate or discriminate against a religious, ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, gender identity, or political group; • Contains images, copy or concepts that actively denigrate public transportation; or 82 • Contains obscene matter as defined in state law, or sex -oriented material as defined in the Riverside County Municipal Code, Chapter 5.44; or • Contains images, copy or concepts that appear to make a personal attack on any individual or upon any company, product, or institution; or falsely disparages any service or product or is defamatory in any respect; or • Contains images, copy or concepts that portrays acts of violence, murder, sedition, terror, antisocial behavior, vandalism, or other acts of violence against persons and/or institutions; or • Contains images, copy or concepts that depict nudity or portions of nudity that would be considered as offensive, distasteful, pornographic, or erotic, is obscene, or advertises adult entertainment. The rule of "public acceptance" should be used in such cases; i.e., if the advertisement has already gained public acceptance, then it may be considered as acceptable to Commission; or • Contains images, copy or concepts that contains political ads endorsing a candidate, measure or proposition; or • Contains images, copy or concepts that contains a religious message or promotes any religion; or • Contains images, copy or concepts that implies an endorsement by Commission for any service, product or point of view; or • Contains images, copy or concepts that are in conflict with any applicable federal, state, or local law, statute, or ordinance. 5. Display, Treatment and Maintenance Requirements Advertising must comply with the following: • Advertising placement or treatments will not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic, will not restrict the visibility of directional/traffic signs and informational material, and will not encroach on necessary sight lines (e.g., driver/operator view of waiting patrons) nor present any other safety risks or hazards. • Advertising industry standard sizes will be used for all advertising treatments. • Advertising treatments will be maintained in "like -new" condition. Damage to the advertisement or its housing will be corrected within forty-eight (48) hours. • Advertising treatments (housings) will complement the architecture of the transit centers/stations and the flavor of the surrounding community. Commission plan specifications will be followed wherever applicable. Advertising treatments will • • 83 • • • be designed, constructed, and placed in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal standards. • Any unsold transit center, major transit points, and station display advertising space will be allocated for graphics and/or nonrevenue-producing functions approved by the Executive Director or his/her designee. At least one full display panel per transit center and station will be reserved exclusively for transit -related items. • Advertising space may be allowed in printed materials (e.g., timetables, maps, and informational brochures) at the discretion of the Executive Director or his/her designee. • No advertising space shall supersede necessary transit information and/or regulations. • At the discretion of the Executive Director or his/her designee, Commission may allocate space in printed materials to inform transit customers about private entities actively participating in trans services, e.g., pass and ticket -sales outlets. • Advertising vendors shall maintain all commercial advertising for which they have contracted to display on Commission properties. 6. Commission's Right of Rejection The Commission reserves the right to reject any advertisement on the stated grounds as set forth in these Guidelines. Any advertisement or other display deemed to be objectionable will be removed. No refund shall be made for the time such objectionable material was on display. Commission's vendors may review advertising content according to their own guidelines of acceptability and generally Commission will not screen individual ads submitted to its vendors prior to posting unless specifically requested to do so by vendors. Nevertheless, in all advertising vendor contracts awarded, Commission reserves the right to reject any advertising content submitted for display on its properties and/or to order the removal of any advertising posted on its properties. Decisions regarding the rejection or removal of advertising shall be made by the Executive Director or his/her designee based upon the criteria in these Guidelines. 84 7. Informational Advertising Commission has several unique distribution channels at its disposal for disseminating transit information that incurs no "space" cost (no fee charged for advertising space). These distribution channels include, but are not limited to: newsletter racks at Commission stations, bulletin boards and cases at select Commission Rail stations. In addition, Commission shall have use of an allotment of advertising space at no charge by agreement with any vendor that sells all remaining advertising space under revenue generating agreements. Acceptable information for these distribution channels is categorized as follows: a. Regular Transit Information Regular transit -oriented information is prepared by Commission and operators as well as upon request from other internal departments. Regular transit information includes, but is not limited to: service features and changes, fare information and changes, safety and security messages, maps and explanations of related transportation services. b. Cross -Promotional Information On an occasional basis and only when space is available, Commission may use its distribution channels to participate in cross -promotional opportunities that offer a direct opportunity to promote the public use of transit. Any materials distributed for this purpose must prominently include promotion of multimodal services (i.e. Rideshare, Commuterlink). Commission is prohibited by law from simply donating advertising space to any entity for purposes that are not directly transit -related. The outside organization involved must either bear the cost of producing such materials or, if approved by Commission, provide an equivalent or greater value in cross -promotional benefits (i.e. advertising space, editorial space, etc.). Any cross -promotional arrangement must be approved by the Executive Director or his/her designee based upon the criteria in these Guidelines. c. "Added Value" Materials On an occasional basis and only when space is available, Commission may use available distribution channels to provide "added value" materials to its customers. Such materials must present a specific and time -dated offer uniquely provided for station patrons (generally a money- saving discount) in which transit can be used to access the redemption point. Any materials distributed for this purpose must prominently include the Commission logo and other wording approved by Commission to indicate that the offer is specifically designed for Commission and transit operator customers. Commission is prohibited by law from simply donating advertising space to any entity for purposes that are not directly transit -related. • • • 85 • • • The outside organization involved must either bear the cost of producing such materials or, if approved by Commission, provide an equivalent or greater value in cross -promotional benefits (i.e. advertising space, editorial space, etc.). Any added value programs must be approved by the Executive Director or his/her designee based upon the criteria in these Guidelines. D. COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES Commission may engage contractor(s) services for the development, implementation, management, and maintenance of advertising, concessions, and/or merchandise programs in conformance with existing Board policies and in the best interests of the Commission. Commission prepares all information messages and materials for dissemination at stations: administers the distribution/display of transit information; tracks/coordinates the availability and use of Commission's unique information distribution channels. Executive Director (or designee) shall review and approve/reject all cross promotions and added value programs using Commission's unique distribution channels based upon the criteria in these Guidelines; enforces Commission's right to reject and/or order removal of commercial advertising based upon the criteria in these Guidelines. Effective Date: Date of Last Review: 86 EXHIBIT "B" INCIDENTAL USE POLICY Any incidental use of Commission owned facilities and property will not exceed that permitted under applicable Federal laws or regulations in accordance with applicable Federal directives. This Policy shall permit staff to use these facilities and property for incidental uses including revenue generating purposes so long as these activities do not interfere with the Commission's primary public transportation operations and responsibilities. These new programs will supplement existing revenues generated from current fare rates and non -operating subsidies. A. Concessions Concession formats, quantity, and placement will be approved and controlled by the Executive Director or his/her designee. Acceptable concession formats may include: short-term rental services (i.e., videos, bicycles, beach or sports equipment), automated teller machines (ATMs), State Lottery vending machines, personal service facilities (i.e., laundry drop-off and pick-up, car detailing), beverage carts, snack or beverage vending machines, and kiosks/shops for the sale of general merchandise, newspapers, magazines, sundries, prepaid transit fares, transit related merchandise, and rider convenience items approved by the Commission. Any additional concession formats are subject to approval of the Executive Director or his/her designee. Contracts for any concession format or related development will be awarded in accordance with existing Commission policies. During hours of business, concessionaires will provide the public with transit information materials as directed and supplied by Commission or its designated representative. Concession treatments/structures will be designed to complement the architecture of the transit centers/stations and the flavor of the surrounding community. Commission plan specifications will be followed wherever applicable. Concession treatments/structures will be designed, constructed, and placed in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal standards. Concession treatments/structures will not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic, will not restrict the visibility of directional signs and informational materials, and will not encroach on necessary sight lines. Concessionaire contracts will include remittance to Commission or its designated operating vendor. Said remittance will be made monthly or quarterly and include a flat rate or a percentage of gross revenue, as approved by the Commission. Any and all concession on -site signing and displays will be in accordance with existing Commission policies and subject to approval of the Executive Director or his/her designee. B. Merchandise Any and all system -related merchandise will be of the quality that is generally available in the surrounding retail environment and will project a positive Commission transit image. 87 Merchandise licensing agreements and royalty payments will be made in accordance with contemporary Commission practices and in the best interests of the Commission. C. Contractor Services Commission may engage contractor(s) services for the development, implementation, management, and maintenance of advertising, concessions, and/or merchandise programs in conformance with existing Board policies and in the best interests of the Commission. Effective Date: Date of Last Review: • 88 • • • EXHIBIT "C" NON-COMMERCIAL FREE SPEECH POLICY A. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT Subject to the discretion of the Executive Director, the Commission's Rail Department will be responsible for overseeing this Policy. B. PROCEDURE 1. Application and Lottery Process for Leafleting, Solicitation, and/or Political Campaign Activities Individuals interested in conducting leafleting, solicitation, and/or political campaign activities at any of Commission's commuter rail stations must complete and submit a "Leafleting, Solicitation and/or Political Campaign Activities Permit Application" to Commission's Rail Department. Applicants shall specify the Commission commuter rail station location for which they are applying for a permit. Individuals may apply for permits at more than one commuter rail station. However, should an individual's application be selected for a permit at more than one commuter rail station for a particular permit period (according to the lottery process described below), the individual must select one station for which he or she may have a permit for the particular permit period within two (2) days of the applicant's receipt of Commission's notification, unless there are no other applications for a particular station. For the station location(s) not selected by such applicant, Commission shall select a different application for receipt of a permit. Two locations have been designated at each commuter rail station for leafleting, solicitation, and/or political campaign activities. Each designated location shall be for one individual. Permits shall be issued for two month periods as follows (except in the case of election months and the month immediately preceding election dates as discussed in Section B below): (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) January and February (Permit Period #1) March and April (Permit Period #2) May and June (Permit Period #3) July and August (Permit Period #4) September and October (Permit Period #5) November and December (Permit Period #6) Applications for a particular permit period shall be due by the 19th day of the calendar month immediately preceding the particular permit period. On the 20th day of the calendar month immediately preceding the particular permit period, Commission shall conduct a lottery whereby two applications shall be blindly selected for each station. Commission shall notify selected applicants in writing within two (2) days of the lottery of their selection and shall enclose a written permit with such notification indicating the rail station at which they have been 89 issued a permit as well as the precise location at the rail station where they may conduct their designated advertising, leafleting and/or solicitation activity. Should a situation arise where a particular applicant is selected for more than one station and must forfeit another station location, Commission shall notify the alternate applicant(s) within two (2) days receipt of notice of the forfeiting applicant's selection of a rail station location. Therefore, for example, for Permit Period #4 (July and August), applications would be due by June 19. Commission would then conduct a lottery on June 20 whereby two applications would be blindly selected. Selected applicants would then be notified in writing by June 22 of their selection. 2. Application and Lottery Process for Political Campaign Activities For the months of February and October and the days in March and November prior to a March or November election date, one of the two permit locations at each commuter rail station shall be reserved for political campaign activities. Individuals who wish to conduct political campaign activities at the commuter rail stations must submit a "Leafleting, Solicitation and/or Political Campaign Activities Permit Application" to Commission's Rail Department by 10:00 am, January 20 for a March election date and by 10:00 am, September 20 for a November election date. If January 20 and/or September 20 fall on a weekend, then applications will be due on the following Monday. Individuals may apply for permits at more than one commuter rail station. Commission shall conduct a blind lottery on or about the same date applications are due whereby each applicant shall be given a three (3) working -day period to conduct political campaign activities at a particular commuter rail station location. Commission shall notify all applicants in writing within two (2) days of the lottery indicating to them which dates they have been designated for their political campaign activities and shall enclose a written permit with such notification indicating the commuter rail station at which they have been issued a permit as well as the precise location at the rail station where they may conduct their designated political campaign activities. Once each applicant has had an opportunity to conduct political campaign activities at a commuter rail station for three (3) working days, then the cycle will start over beginning with the applicant who had the first three (3) working -day period. Should more applicants apply than can be accommodated for three (3) working -day periods, then the permit period shall be decreased to two (2) working -days. If no applications are submitted to conduct political campaign activities at a particular commuter rail station, then the permit location shall continue being designated for advertising, leafleting and solicitation activities. The leafleting, solicitation, and/or political campaign activities permittee who had been using the location shall be allowed to continue conducting such activities at the location until the end of the permit period (see Section A above) for which he or she was selected. 3. Permit Requirements Permit recipients shall conduct their designated leafleting, solicitation and/or political campaign activity for the permit period indicated on the permit. Permit recipients must adhere to the following policies in conducting such activities: • • • 90 • • No leaflets, placards, signs, banners or other material shall be affixed to any Commission property. • No material shall be distributed by leaving it unattended. • Permission shall not be given by Commission for leafleting of cars parked in rail station parking lots. • Permittees must have the original or a copy of the permit with them at all times while they are conducting their designated leafleting, soliciting and/or political campaign activities at the commuter rail stations. • Permittees may not conduct their leafleting, soliciting and/or political campaign activities on the platform of a commuter rail station. • Permittees may not set up tables or booths at the commuter rail stations. • Permittees may not block access to ticket machines or other facilities such as newsracks or benches. • • • Permittees may not conduct the designated leafleting, soliciting and/or political campaign activities on stairways leading to platforms, stairways leading up to an overcrossing or on an overcrossing. • Permittees may not create disturbances or harass patrons. • Permittees must follow the directions of security guards and Commission officials. • Permits may be revoked if not used for three (3) consecutive working days (except in the case of permits issued for political campaign activities). III. APPEAL PROCEDURE Commission staff shall make a good faith effort to comply with the timelines set forth herein. Should events arise such as holidays or work -related events whereby slight modifications must be made to the timelines, Commission staff shall make a good faith effort to follow the timelines set forth herein as closely as possible. Any permit recipient who does not adhere to all of the policies contained herein shall be asked by a security guard to leave the premises immediately. Furthermore, violation of any of the above policies shall result in automatic revocation of a permit. Should an individual's application for a permit be denied, such individual may appeal the denial of his or her application in writing to the Executive Director of Commission explaining why the application should not have been denied. The Executive Director shall review the denial 91 and shall notify the denied applicant of his or her determination in writing within ten (10) days receipt of such appeal. The Executive Director may authorize exceptions to the above -stated policies to protect applicants' free speech rights as well as the safety and mobility of patrons. Should the Executive Director uphold the denial of such individual's application, such individual may appeal his or her case to the Board of Commissioners by sending such appeal to the Board in writing explaining why the application should not have been denied. The Board shall review the appeal at its next general meeting and shall notify the denied applicant of its determination in writing within ten (10) days of such general meeting. • • • 92 ed and ma ht . Color me esigned and m,. actu d by )dSight . Color matched to the surroundings • • wa1I epua6d \/ VI. NI) raphics wraps wa il epua6y • waliscapes • • • • • weij epua6y • V VENr floor graphics ATTACHMENT 3 • • • Agreement No. 11-24-029- 00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ADVERTISING SERVICES WITH VENDSIGHT INCORPORATED 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2011, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION' ("the Commission") and VENDSIGHT INCORPORATED ("Consultant"), ; a Delaware Corporation. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services requiredi by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing advertising services to public clients, is duly registered in California and agrees to maintain such registration with the California Secretary of State, and is familiar with the plans of the Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain turn- key advertising services for the Station Advertising Revenue Program ("Project") as set forth herein. The turn -key program shall include advertising graphics production, account management, design, installation, and maintenance. 2.3 Commission desires to make available advertising space at its five commuter rail stations and the Perris Transit Center located in Riverside County. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide turn -key advertising services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for a five (5) year base period with a single five (5) year option to extend the Agreement for a total period of 99 performance of up to ten (10) years. The option term may be exercised by the Commission, at its sole discretion, with prior written notice to the Consultant. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control"".and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under`, its, supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others "during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: Michael Barnhill. 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates Executive Director, or his/her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall 2 • 100 • • • have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his/her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Michael Barnhill, or his/her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant'sRepresentative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. 3.11.1 Statutes. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall also comply with all applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §§ 12900 et seq.; the state "whistleblower" requirements, California Labor Code §§ 1101 et seq.; and Employment of Undocumented Aliens, California Public Contract Code §§ 6101 et seq. 3 101 3.11.2 Liability. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its subcontractors to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) 4 • 102 • • • years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. 3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered a additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and, (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 5 103 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to, the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. In consideration for Commission entering into and granting the exclusive right to provide turn -key advertising services as provided forth in this Agreement, Consultant will pay Customer those rates as outlined in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created 6 • • 104 • • pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the final payment under this Agreement or the date of termination of this Agreement, whichever comes later. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Both parties may, by written notice to the other, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to the other of such termination, . and specifying the effective date thereof. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: Vendsight Incorporated 8021 Wing, Ave. El Cajon, CA 92020 Attn: Michael Barnhill COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, 7 105 estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant,. and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless 8 • • • 106 • • otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, 9 107 officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with 10 • 108 • • Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provi- sions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consu work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et sea. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performedas part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $`1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per, diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly, indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. 11 Itant shall not subcontract any portion of the 109 If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at` notless than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for eachworker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is 'required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 3.34 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 3.35 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.36 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 12 • • 110 • 3.37 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.38 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 3.39 Piggybacking. To the extent permitted by state and federal law, for the first twenty four months of this Agreement, any other public transportation organizations within the State of California may enter into similar professional service agreements for turn -key advertising services on the same terms and conditions contained herein. • • [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 13 111 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ADVERTISING SERVICES WITH VENDSIGHT INCORPORATED IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION VENDSIGHT INCORPORATED By: Greg Pettis Chairman [NOT NEEDED IF APPROVED BY COMMISSION] By: Anne Mayer Executive Director Approved as to Form: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel 14 By: Signature Name Title • • 112 • • • EXHIBIT "A" Scope of Services 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Background 1.1.1 In establishing this Agreement, the Commission intends to generate revenue from the available space located at its five (5) commuter rail stations and the Perris Transit Center and increase vending `revenueat no cost to the Commission. 1.1.2 Consultant shall provide all labor and labor supervision, tools, equipment, transportation, and supplies necessary to successfully provide a turn -key advertising revenue program at no cost to the Commission. The turn -key program shall include advertising graphics production, account management, design, installation, and maintenance, as described herein. 1.1.3 Consultant shall conform to the Commission's Commercial Advertising Policy and Content Guidelines. 1.1.4 Consultant shall refuse advertising of tobacco and/or alcoholic beverage products and sexually explicit copy on any advertising space. 1.1.5 The Commission's purpose in allowing advertising is to raise revenue, not to allow public speech. Consultant shall limit advertisements to those advertisements that propose a commercial transaction. Consultant shall refuse political advertisements or issue oriented advertisements (for example: pro choice or anti -choice advertisements, religious advertisements, etc.) 1.1 .6. The successful Consultant will be responsible for soliciting advertisers to buy advertising in and around the Commission's commuter rail stations and the Perris Transit Center in Riverside County. The Consultant shall employ its best efforts to develop and make sales of advertising space and shall operate a fully staffed business office serving the Southern California area including: 1.1.6.1 An experienced local ad sales force with the capability of acquiring national advertising accounts; and 1.1.6.2 An office facility and work force capable of assuring proper installation, maintenance, and removal of advertising displays on revenue equipment. 2.0 TASKS A-1 113 Consultant shall perform various advertising tasks at all Commission rail station properties including, but not limited to: 2.1 Station Advertising Revenue Program Services 2.1.1 Marketing and selling advertising packages. Solicit advertising in an effort to completely sell all available space authorized by, this Agreement. 2.1.2 Create high traffic advertising placement and create secure and aesthetically attractive advertisements and points of sale. 2.1.3 Production of banners, floor graphics, wallscapes. 2.1.4 Graphics design for all advertising programs. 2.1.5 Management services: oversee all necessary personnel, maintenance, and installation. 2.1.6 Portfolio management: manage all advertiser accounts. 2.1.7 Increase vending revenue 2.1.8 No less than ten percent (10%) of available fixed advertising space at each station shall be reserved to exclusive ' use at the discretion of Commission. 2.1.9 If the Commission decides to use any such advertising space, Consultant agrees to install the Commission's advertisements at no charge within ten (10) days after receipt and to remove all advertising within three (3) days of the specified removal date. 2.1.10 All commercial advertising shall comply with the Commission's Commercial Advertising Policy and Content Guidelines its most current form as adopted by the Commission and as it may be revised from time to time. 2.2 Installation Services 2.2.1 Install media enclosures and fixed signage in mutually agreed locations at no cost to the Commission, including but not limited to framed, mounted advertising panels, backlighting, billboards, digital signage, and banners. 2.2.2 Each ad placement shall be installed: 1) free from wrinkles, blisters, or similar defects; 2) displayed properly; and 3) present a sharp, clear, and clean appearance. 2.2.3 No advertisement/placement will be allowed to interfere with any safety devices, signs, lights, signals, identification numbers, or distinctive logos at the commuter rail stations. This includes, but is not limited to, reflective materials, side reflectors, and other features. In addition, advertisements cannot interfere with the normal utilization of vents, glazing, ladders, windows, doors, and other equipment that may require regular preventive maintenance. A-2 • 114 • • • 2.2.4 Production and installation of no less than one (1) vending machine enclosure capable of accommodating at least two (2) machines of current configuration at each station. One side shall be dedicated to Commission messaging. 2.2.5 Consultant must provide the following Icon Enclosure, OR EQUAL: • Product #: RC04-Dual Machine Enclosure/No Security Door • Option #: ADP01 Ad Panel Kit • Option #: BB01 Header Display 2.2.5.1 AN APPROVED EQUAL may be allowed as a substitute for the above -described unit, however, prior written authorization to substitute the Icon enclosure specified above must be received by the Procurement Officer. 2.2.6 Installation and removal of advertisements shall be done by Consultant at Consultant's sole expense. Installation and removal at the Commission - owned commuter rail station sites shall be performed by Consultant Monday -Friday between 9:00 am and 2:30 pm, unless prior approval is obtained from the Commission. Consultant shall be 'responsible for, at no cost to the Commission, any repairs required as a result of installation or removal of advertisements. This includes, but is not limited to, any paint damage, resulting from the removal of direct application advertisements. 2.3 Maintenance Services 2.3.1 Consultant shall maintain and repair, at its sole cost and expense, all equipment and advertising space provided by or on behalf of Consultant for the term of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions below. 2.3.2 Consultant shall_. maintain an attractive appearance for all of the advertisements at every station. Consultant shall maintain clean and not worn, tattered or defaced advertising displays. Each advertisement shall be free from wrinkles, blisters or similar defects and shall present a sharp and clear appearance. 2.3.3 " If requested in writing by the Commission, an advertisement, shall be removed by Consultant within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt of written request at no cost to the Commission. 2.3.4 Consultant shall remove date sensitive advertisements within one (1) week after expiration. Failure to remove date sensitive advertisements within one (1) week after expiration may result in the Commission removing the advertisements and assessing the cost for removal to Consultant. 3.0 CONSULTANT OBLIGATIONS A-3 115 3.1 Notifications and Response Time(s) 3.1.1 Consultant shall assume an appropriate level of advertising staffing and workforce capable of ensuring proper installation and removal of advertising material 3.1.2 An advertiser's placement, shall be removed by Consultant within 48 hours of receipt of written request from the Commission at no cost to the Commission. 3.1.3 Consultant and Consultant's subcontractors shall provide the Commission with 24 -hour contact number(s) for Consultant's key personnel and an acceptable means of emergency "on -call" communication with the Commission's designated project manager. 3.1.4 Consultant's offices shall have voice, fax and e-mail capability. 3.1.5 The Commission's designated Project manager shall be notified, in advance, if Consultant and/or its subcontractors intend to be on or have employees on Commission -owned property at times other than regularly scheduled work times 3.1.6 Consultant and/or its subcontractors are to immediately notify the Commission's designated project representative of any unsafe or questionable condition that exists on any Commission property. The designated Commission representative will then notify the necessary parties. 3.2 Reporting 3.2.1 The Consultant shall provide the Commission with a regular quarterly report regarding the fixed percentage of the gross advertising revenue generated by Consultant under the program. 3.2.2 Upon request, Consultant shall furnish to the Commission a copy of each contract entered into by Consultant for advertising space at all of the stations during the term of this Agreement. Terms and conditions of sales of advertising shall be at the sole discretion of Consultant, subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the Commission's adopted advertising policy. 3.2.3 The Consultant shall establish a schedule of rates applicable to the sale of advertising space for various station placements. The Consultant shall forward such rates to the designated Commission project Manager within three (5) days of the issuance of the initial notice to proceed, and within fifteen (15) days of any changes during the course of this Agreement. 3.3 Advertising Asset Inventory 3.3.1 Approval of Advertising Placements The Commission shall approve all advertising placements, exhibit material, announcements, or any other display and their manner of presentation prior to placement of such ads. Accordingly, all advertising A-4 • • • 116 • • • displays at any time placed on any Commission equipment by the Contractor shall be deemed acceptable to the Commission only by advance written approval by the designated Commission representative. The Commission's determination to approve or disapprove advertising will be based on the guidelines set forth in this RFP, including the Commercial Advertising Policy (see Appendix H) adopted by the Commission. 3.3.2 Ownership and Title to Asset Inventory Consultant shall retain title to all asset inventory it provides under the terms of the program pursuant to this Agreement until the Agreement expires or is terminated pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. If the Agreement either expires or is terminated, the Commission may choose to: 1) elect to have all Consultant -provided inventory and associated equipment removed and all affected areas returned to a safe, finished condition to the,, Commission's satisfaction at the Consultant's expense; or 2) transfer title of the assets to the Commission at which time title to the assets shall transfer to the Commission free and clear of all encumbrances through negotiated purchase from the Consultant based on the depreciated or current market value of the asset inventory. 3.4 Program Review Consultant and Commission may meet and confer annually, or as requested by either party, regarding the operation of the Program, including the status of existing, planned and prospective placements. 4.0 COMPENSATION STRUCTURE 4.1 Revenue Sharing Compensation by the Consultant to the Commission shall be based on the Gross Advertising Revenue sharing structure as detailed in Exhibit C. The term Gross Advertising Revenue means all monies and remunerations received from the sale of advertising space by the Consultant in its operations as permitted under the Agreement. 4.2.1 Gross advertising revenue shall be calculated on an accrual basis, (i.e., amounts are pro -rated to the time periods which correlate to the time periods during which the advertising is displayed). 4.2 A-5 117 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Supporting Resolution for the Commission's Commuter Rail Program WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances for the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Bond Program". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) was created by Proposition 1 B, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006. Of the $19.925 billion available to transportation, $3.6 billion dollars was allocated to PTMISEA for transit operators over a 10 -year period. PTMISEA funds may be used for transit rehabilitation, safety or modernization improvements, capital service enhancements or expansions, new capital projects, bus rapid transit improvements, or rolling stock (buses and rail cars) procurement, rehabilitation, or replacement. The Commission has used these funds for numerous capital projects including construction of the Perris Station Transit Center, painting, fencing, and closed circuit television upgrades. Projects funded from the PTMISEA will help advance the state's policy goals of providing mobility choices for all residents, reducing congestion, and protecting the environment. Funds in this account are appropriated annually by the Legislature to the state controller's office for allocation in accordance with the Public Utilities Code formula distribution: 50 percent allocated to local operators based on fare -box revenue and 50 percent to regional entities based on population. Caltrans is responsible for the PTMISEA program. Due to the current fiscal state, California Agenda Item 8G 120 bond funds have not been sold regularly. Projects approved for funding will receive their request when funding from bond sales become available. Caltrans adopted a requirement of certifications and assurances for the PTMISEA bond program. As a condition of the receipt of PTMISEA bond funds, project sponsors must comply with these terms and conditions, which include submission of a resolution establishing intent to comply with such regulations and the requisite authorization of the Commission's executive director. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to meet this requirement. There is no direct financial impact related to adoption of this resolution. Attachment: Resolution No. 11-012 Agenda Item 8G • • • 121 • • • RESOLUTION NO. 1 1 -01 2 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES FOR THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND SERVICE ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT BOND PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is an eligible project sponsor and may receive state funding from the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) now or sometime in the future for transit projects; and WHEREAS, the statutes related to state -funded transit projects require a local or regional implementing agency to abide by various regulations; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 88 (2007) named the Department of Transportation (Department) as the administrative agency for the PTMISEA; and WHEREAS, the Department has developed guidelines for the purpose of administering and distributing PTMISEA funds to eligible project sponsors (local agencies); and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission wishes to delegate authorization to execute these documents and any amendments thereto to the Executive Director or designee. NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission that it agrees as the funding recipient to comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in the Certification and Assurances document and applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines for all PTMISEA funded transit projects. 122 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director or designee be authorized to execute all required documents of the PTMISEA program and any Amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July 2011. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • • • 123 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009/10 Productivity Improvement Program BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the transit operators' compliance status report for the FY 2009/10 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Development Act requires that the Commission annually identify and analyze operating trends for each operator and recommend potential productivity improvements, which could lower the operating costs as per the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99244. The Commission meets this requirement through the adoption and approval of the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP), which detail the operating and capital costs for planned transit services for both bus and commuter rail. The PIP was designed to assist in the SRTP process and meet state PUC requirements by establishing objective criteria for assessing productivity improvement opportunities. The program is part of the Commission's comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to improve system efficiency, provide better service and manage costs. To accomplish this, the PIP establishes both mandatory and discretionary performance targets that are evaluated against the operator's actual performance. The PIP requires all operators to meet a single mandatory target and seven discretionary targets. The performance targets are evaluated through the PIP process as follows: Mandatory Target • Fare box recovery ratio (between 10 percent for services provided in non - urbanized areas and 20 percent for services in urbanized areas). Agenda Item 8H 124 Discretionary Targets • Operating cost per revenue hour (CPI annual increase); • Subsidy per passenger (+/- 15 percent variance); • Subsidy per passenger mile (+/- 15 percent variance); • Subsidy per revenue hour (+/- 15 percent variance); • Subsidy per revenue mile (+/- 15 percent variance); • Passengers per revenue hour (+/- 15 percent variance); and • Passengers per revenue mile (+/- 15 percent variance). Additional Discretionary Targets for Commuter Rail Program • Ridership growth - Goal of 2 percent; and • Passenger miles per revenue car - Goal of 30 passengers per revenue car mile. To be in compliance with the PIP, a bus operator needs to meet or exceed the required fare box recovery ratio and meet or exceed four of seven discretionary targets. The Commuter Rail Program must meet or exceed the required fare box recovery ratio as well as five out of nine discretionary standards. Based on the FY 2009/10 data the attached PIP Compliance Summary report indicates that all transit operators have either met or exceeded the PIP targets. The cities of Banning, Corona, Riverside, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency have met the required fare box recovery target and all seven discretionary targets. The city of Beaumont met the mandatory fare box target as well as six out of seven discretionary targets, while the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency met four of seven discretionary targets in addition to the mandatory fare box target. The Commission's Commuter Rail Program has met its fare box requirement and five out of nine discretionary targets. Beginning FY 2010/11, the Commission's Commuter Rail Program will be exempted from the current PIP Program, due to the recent Commission audit findings relating to the applicability of PIP Program compliance requirements for the Metrolink Commuter Rail services operated in the county. The auditor determined that the performance measurements for Commuter Rail were sufficiently different and not readily comparable with those of the bus and paratransit systems. Furthermore, the Commission's Rail Department, even when working in conjunction with the other Metrolink member agencies, had limited ability to modify the operations of Metrolink to positively impact the PIP targets. The Rail Department, in conjunction with the Metrolink budget request, will provide a detailed review of Metrolink's performance and metrics on an annual basis (in lieu of the quarterly PIP reporting using TransTrack software) for the Commission's review and discussion. Agenda Item 8H • 125 • • • To ensure that transit services in the county are provided effectively and efficiently, staff in cooperation with transit providers will continue to monitor quarterly performance to track progress against each agency's own goals, performance measures and service standards. Staff also intends to implement a comprehensive review of the PIP to ensure that policy, criteria, and targets are both fair and achievable by the operators in light of the current economic conditions. Attachments: 1) FY 2009/10 PIP Compliance Summary - Fourth Quarter Status 2) Service Provider Performance Target Reports Agenda Item 8H 126 • • FY 2009/10 PIP COMPLIANCE SUMMARY - FOURTH QUARTER STATUS July 2009 - June 2010 • ATTACHMENT 1 PIP Indicat ors Banning B eaum ont Coron a Riv erside RCTC Rail RTA SunLine PVVTA Mandatory: 1. Fa rebox Recovery Ra tio v y, J v' V v IS Discretio na ry: 1, Opera ting Cost Per Re venue Hour V 0 v v 0 V \, 0 2. Subsidy Pe r Passenge r V V V J 0 J ' 0 3. Subsidy Per Passe nger Mile V V V v V V v' V 4. Subsidy Per Hour V V V v 0 V V V 5. Subsidy Per Mile V V V v 0 V V V 6. Pa ssengers Per Revenue Hour V V V v V J J 0 7. Passenge rs Per Reve nue Mile v V V V V N, IS Unlinked Passe nge r Trips (Rail) V Passenger Miles per Rev, Ca r Miles (Ra il) v Manda tory Scorecard (Fa rebo x Ra tio; Discretio na ry Scoreca rd Met Farebo x me t 7 of 7 Me t Fare bo x met 6 of 7 Met Farebox met 7 of 7 M et F arebox met 7 of 7 Met Farebox met 5 of 9 Met Farebox m et 7 of 7 Met F ar ebox met 7 of 7 Met Far eb ox met 4 of 7 PIP Compliance* J J v v v I J * Legend: ti' = In Complia nce; 0 = Not in Compli ance; N/A = not av ail able To mee t RCTC PIP Program, operators need to meet: • Required fa rebo x recovery ra tio : (10% for municipa l operators; 20% for Co rona , 40% fo r Ra il, 16.85% for RTA and 18.18% for SunLin e) • At lea st 4 of the 7 discretiona ry targets (Bus); at lea st 5 of the 9 discretio nary ta rgets (Ra il) Fourth Quarter FY 09/10 PIP Complian ce (as of June /10): • All O pera to rs met fa rebox ra tio requirement. • All Operators are in c ompliance with Discretionary Indica tor requirement to mee t at lea st 4 of 7 discretionary targets JC/6-Y-II 127 Rivar de iorF=ar frc prewtion {orarrin ci • • Table 7 -- S ervi ce P rovid er P erfo rmance Targets Repo rt FY 2009/10 Sh ort Range Transit Pla n Review City of Banning Data El eme nts FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Targ et FY 2009/10 Year to Date Thr ough 4th Q uarter Y ear to Date Performance Scor ecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 151,457 Passenger Miles 369,270 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 15,393.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 241,393 .0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 259,564.0 Total Operating Expenses $1,274,851 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $129,850 Net Operating Expenses $1,145,001 Performan ce Indicato rs Mandatory: 1, Farebox Recovery Ratio I 10.18% I >= 10.00% I 10.93% [Meets Target Discretio nary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $82 .82 <= $84.89 $84.33 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $7.56 >= $6.44 and <= $8.72 $8 .49 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $3.10 >= $2.48 and <= $3.36 $3.18 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $74.38 >= $61.84 and <= $83.66 $75.11 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $4.74 >= $3.77 and <= $5.11 $4.65 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 9.80 >= 8.16 and <= 11.04 8.80 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.63 >= 0.50 and <= 0.68 0.55 Meets Target NntP' Mutt moat at laac t 4 na it of 7 Hier,-.4l.,.,m.,, D,,.v.,... ,-., -, , r.. a„-,.-_.. Pro ductiv ity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: Trans Track Ma na ger' 6/9/2011 P ag e 1 of 8 128 pireride CacJrftr Tr a*sp0tatian a mrr rr rn Tabl e 7 -- S ervi ce Provider P erf ormanc e Target s Rep ort FY 2009/10 Sh ort Range Tra nsit Plan Review City of B eaum ont Data Elem ents FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Dat e Performa nce Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 114,100 Passenger Miles 226,400 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 16,200.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 235,580.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 244,180.0 Total Operating Expenses $1,198,500 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $119,850 Net Operating Expenses $1,078,650 Performance Indicato rs M andatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 10 .00% l >= 10.00% I 19 .26% IMeets Target Discretio nary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $73.98 <= $74.25 $79 .35 Fails to Meet Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $9.45 >_ $9.09 and <= $12.29 $7 .62 Better Than Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $4.76 >= $4.19 and <= $5 .67 $3.67 Better Than Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $66.58 >= $55,11 and <_ $74 .55 $64.07 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $4.58 >= $3.99 and <= $5.39 $4.58 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 7.00 >= 5 .19 and <= 7.02 8.40 Better Than Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.48 >= 0.37 and <= 0,51 0.60 Better Than Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Pro ductiv ity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement, Meets 6 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Commen ts: Trans Ma nage r' ^' 6/9/2 fot Rivervde ia«<rry irn-sp; iarioa Corn ass 3n • • Table 7 -- S er vi ce Provider Performanc e Targets Repo rt FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Pla n Review City of Corona Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Thr ough 4th Quarter Y ear to Date Performance Sc or ecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 231,382 Passenger Miles 979,656 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 34,205.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 437,556.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 465,896.0 Total Operating Expenses $2,106,454 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $421,291 Net Operating Expenses $1,685,163 Performance Indicators Mandatory: , 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio 20,00% 1 >= 20 .00% I 20.82% 'Meets Target Discretio nary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $61.58 <= $59.39 $59.09 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $7.28 >= $5.81 and <= $7.85 $7.00 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $1.72 >= $1.37 and <= $1.85 $1.65 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $49.27 >= $39.02 and <= $52.79 $46.79 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $3.85 >= $3.05 and <= $4.13 $3.63 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. 80 >= 5.70 and <= 7,71 6.70 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.53 >= 0.45 and <= 0.61 0.52 Meets Target No te : Must MP Pt At load 4 ni it of 7 hicrroti nrnry Dor fnrrnn ,,„ T.,rll.--,4,,. -- Productiv ity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: Trans Tra ck Mana ger" 6/9/2011 Page 3 of 8 130 QiVir144E £m' ty Tr13opralniinn'COMM* n Table 7 -- Se rvi ce Pro vider Perf ormance T argets Report FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan R eview City of Riverside Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Thr ough 4th Quarter Year to Date P erf ormance Scor ecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 164,562 Passenger Miles 590,981 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 39,977.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 590,981.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 722,889.0 Total Operating Expenses $2,978,496 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $331,000 Net Operating Expenses $2,647,496 Performance Indicators M andatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 11.11% 1 >= 10.00% J 13.47% j Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $74.51 <= $74 .48 $70.86 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $16.09 >= $13.80 and <= $18.66 $16.89 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $4.48 >= $3.56 and <= $4.82 $4.33 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $66.23 >= $54.08 and <= $73.16 $61.31 Meets Target 5, Subsidy Per Mile $4.48 >= $3.84 and <= $5.20 $4.21 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 4.10 >= 3.32 and <= 4.49 3.60 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.28 >= 0.24 and <= 0.32 0.25 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Serv ice Provider Comments: Tr ans ra ck Mana ger"" 6/9/2 .o4 of 8 hitiar:idt(cltr1 Ir 1p[.Intian{ama$aaFti • • Table 7 -- S ervi ce Pro vider Perform an ce T argets R epo rt FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Re vi ew Pal o Verde Valley Transit Agency Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Perf ormance Sc orecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 58,085 Passenger Miles 369,137 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 12,475 .0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 216,020.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 254,643.0 Total Operating Expenses $925,069 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $107,775 Net Operating Expenses $817,294 Pe rformance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 11.65% I >= 10.00% I 12.43% !Meets Target Discretionary: 1, Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $74 .15 <= $83.88 $89.88 Fails to Meet Target 2, Subsidy Per Passenger $14.07 >_ $12.72 and <= $17.22 $19.76 Fails to Meet Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $2.21 >= $2.06 and <= $2.78 $1 .83 Better Than Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $65.51 >= $61.99 and <= $83.87 $78.70 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $3.78 >= $3.68 and <= $4.98 $4.46 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 4.70 >= 4.08 and <= 5.52 4.00 Fails to Meet Target 7, Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.27 >= 0.23 and <= 0.32 0.23 Meets Target Nntn• Mitch moot oh Inch Z n..h . ,F 1 r',; --.r., - ,-- ,, n,...c... ,.,..____ +_�.__�_.._ Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 4 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Did not meet RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Co mments: Tra ns Tra ck Manager ' 6/9/2011 Pa ge 5 of 8 132 piklride (Dover Tr onsp xinlioo Corn Table 7 -- Servi ce Provider Performanc e Targ ets Rep ort FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan R evi ew RCTC C ommuter Rail Data El ements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Dat e Thr ough 4th Quarter Ye ar to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,279,966 Passenger Miles 114,937,184 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Train Hours 73,285.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Car Miles 2,965,391.0 Total Actual Vehicle Train Miles Total Operating Expenses $42,533,000 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $20,010,100 Net Operating Expenses $22,522,900 Performan ce Indicators M andatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio 1 47,04% I >= 40.00% I 40.72% IMeets Target Discre tionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $580.38 <= $2,876.40 $2,906.34 Fails to Meet Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $6.87 >_ $6.11 and <= $8.27 $8.50 Fails to Meet Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.20 >= $0.18 and <= $0.24 $0.24 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $307.33 >= $1,612.88 and <= $1,708.18 $1,722.70 Fails to Meet Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $7.60 >= $6.42 and <= $8.68 $9.12 Fails to Meet Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 44.80 >= 191.91 and <= 205.29 202.60 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 1.11 >= 0,89 and <= 1.21 1 .07 Meets Target 8. Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,279,966 >= 3,206,139 2,939,587 Meets Target 9. Passenger Miles per Rev. Car Miles 38.76 >= 30.52 and <= 41.30 37.81 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 5 out of 9 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Pe rformance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 5 of 9 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provider Comments: Tr an ack Ma na gerTM 6/9/2. �3 P6 of 8 Riwar-de Cou€tr Tra mptetalinn (um mm • • Table 7 -- Service Pro vide r Performan ce Targ ets Report FY 2009/10 Short Rang e Transit Plan Review Riverside Transit Agency Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Target FY 2009/10 Year to Date Thr ough 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Sc orecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 7,818,232 Passenger Miles 52,895,475 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 678,357.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 11,942,606.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 13,848,422.0 Total Operating Expenses 552,998,175 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $10,820,349 Net Operating Expenses $42,177,826 Perfo rman ce Indicators Man datory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 20,41% I >= 16.85% I 24.76% 'Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $78 .13 <= $79.95 $75 .81 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $5.39 >= $4.20 and <= $5.68 $4.49 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.80 >= $0.64 and <= $0.86 $0.68 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $62.18 >= $51.20 and <= $69.26 $57.04 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $3.53 >= $3.07 and <= $4.15 $3.35 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 11.50 >= 10.37 and <= 14 .03 12.70 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.65 >= 0 .62 and <= 0.84 0.75 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Disrretinnary Parfnrmanra rnrilrarr,-c Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provide r Comments: Tra ns Tra ck Mana ger' 6/9/2011 Pag e 7 of 8 134 RikeriFde(oatryTr ,np uialioniamn Table 7 -- Service Pro vider Perform anc e T arget s Report FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Pla n Review SunLine Transit Agency Data Elements FY 2009/10 Plan FY 2009/10 Targ et FY 2009/10 Year to Date Through 4th Quarter Year to Date Performance Scorecard Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,853,176 Passenger Miles 22,271,866 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 243,159.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 3,097,836.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 3,381,145 .0 Total Operating Expenses $22,735,270 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $4,145,078 Net Operating Expenses $18,590,192 Pe rforman ce In dicators M andatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio I 18.23% 1 >= 18.18% I 18.18% I Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $93.50 <= $94.25 $91.72 Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger $4.82 >= $3.90 and <= $5.28 $4.68 Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.83 >= $0.68 and <= $0.92 $0.81 Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour $76.45 >_ $63 .04 and <= $85.28 $75.04 Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile $6.00 >= $4.94 and <= $6.68 $5.54 Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 15.80 >= 13.69 and <= 18.52 16.00 Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 1.24 >= 1.07 and <= 1,45 1,18 Meets Target Note: Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Meets FY 09/10 Farebox Ratio Requirement. Meets 7 of 7 Discretionary Indicators. Meets RCTC PIP Program. Service Provide r Comme nts: Trans ck Ma na ge r' 6/9/2co P46 8of8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2011/12 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize payment of $1 ,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 to the existing Corona, Mira Loma, and Riverside buspools; and 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their commutes along the State Route 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 or $25/seat/month in support of commuter buspool operations. In July 2004, the Commission set the subsidy rate at $35/seat/month ($1,645/month) to help offset increases to operational costs during the previous 14 years. To provide additional guidance, the Commission also established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and to seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation, the Measure A $35/seat/month subsidy is administered as a user side subsidy. The Commission's subsidy is an important factor that makes buspools an attractive alternative for these commuters with roundtrip commutes in excess of 100 miles. Also, the Commission's subsidy Agenda Item 81 136 remains cost-effective compared to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 83 percent. While the monthly cost of each buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy reflects a subsidy rate of 13 percent. Average Monthly Buspool Fare Per Rider RCTC Subsidy Per Seat Subsidy Rate $265.00 $35.00 13% Unlike some of the other Commission -approved ridesharing incentives that have a limited term, the buspool subsidy is ongoing. To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to: • Request in writing, continuation of funding from the Commission for the new fiscal year; • Consistently meet minimum ridership requirements; and • Submit monthly ridership reports throughout the year. The three existing buspools have completed all the requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including the submittal of monthly ridership reports and annual funding continuation requests. They have consistently exceeded the minimum ridership level of 25 riders per month and have collectively averaged 39 riders/month/buspool this current fiscal year. Buspools Average Riders/Month Roundtrip Distance Annual Miles Saved Annual One -Way. Trips Reduced Corona 46 —134 mi 1,321,298 23,980 Mira Loma 29 —123 mi 895,884 14,520 Riverside 41 ---1 10 mi 1,424,337 21,164 Estimated Pounds of Emissions Reduced Miles Saved 63,586 3,641,519 Trips Reduced 59,664 In reducing the number of vehicles on SR -91 during peak periods, the buspool program saved more than 3.6 million miles and 63,586 pounds of vehicle emissions in FY 2010/11. The buspool subsidy proves to be an effective use of Measure A Commuter Assistance funds and a budget of $100,000 is proposed for FY 2011/12. Based on the established monthly $1,645/month per buspool subsidy policy, the funds will support the continuation of the three existing buspools plus two new start-up buspools. Agenda Item 81 • 137 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $ 100,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 002109 81030 263 41 81002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \y ,3Itturir Date: 06/13/11 Attachments: 1) Corona Renewal Request 2) Mira Loma Renewal Request 3) Riverside Renewal Request Agenda Item 81 138 • • • 2011-06-07 14:31 The Boeing Company 3104169369 » MARCIA PASQUARELLA Send correspondences to: 2705 Monserat Circle Corona, CA 92881 June 7, 2011 Attn.: Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Cunanan, In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 for the "Corona" to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from Odyssey is $267. RCTC provides a $35 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $232 is provided between the riders and their employers. The following is the Corona to El Segundo Buspool schedule: AM Departure Living Truth Park & Ride Lot 4:50 a.m. AM Arrival El Segundo 5:45 a.m. PM Departure El Segundo 3:30 p.m. PM Arrival Living Truth Park & Ride Lot 5:15 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Boeing, Raytheon, Aerospace Corporation, and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging from these employers. These employers rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely, (fit 1ii1 Marcia Pasquarella Corona Buspool Coordinator P 1/1 ATTACHMENT 1 139 ATTACHMENT 2 • HARLAN ALPERT Send correspondences to: Aerospace Corporation 2350 E. El Segundo Blvd. El Segundo, CA 90245-4691 April 11, 2011 Attn.: Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Cunanan, In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 for the "Mira Loma" (Mira Loma/Corona) to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. - ---- The-monthly-cost-to-operate-this-buspool-from (Tour -Coach) is-$254.—RCTC-provides a -$35 ------ monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $219 is provided between the riders and their employers. The following is the Mira Loma/Corona Buspool schedule: AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Mira Loma Corona Park 8z Ride Lot El Segundo El Segundo Corona Park & Ride Lot Mira Loma (Monday — Thursday) (Friday) 4:08 a.m. 4:08 a.m. 4:25 a.m. 4:25 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 4:45 p.m. 2:30 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 4:15 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Boeing, Aerospace Corporation, and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely, Harlan Alpert Mira Loma Buspool Operator 140 ATTACHMENT 3 • • CATALINA FUENTES Send correspondences to: Raytheon Company 2000 E. El Segundo Blvd. El Segundo, CA 90245-4501 May 26, 2011 Attn.: Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Cunanan. In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 for the "Riverside" to El Segundo Commuter Buspool, I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this bus pool from Odyssey is $274.00. RCTC provides a $35 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $239.00 is provided between the riders and their employers. The following is the Riverside to El Segundo Buspool schedule: AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Galleria at Tyler, Riverside Corona Park & Ride Lot Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon, El Segundo Corona Park & Ride Lot Galleria at Tyler, Riverside 4:15 a.m. 4:25 a.m. 5:20 a.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 4:45 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace Corporation, and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your continued support ofthis successful buspool program. Sincerely, Catalina Fuentes Riverside Buspool. Coordinator • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension for the City of Temecula BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to grant the city of Temecula (Temecula) an extension to June 30, 2012, for SB 821 program funds approved for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year, 2 percent of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. There are three steps to carry out the program: All cities and the county are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals. The Commission's SB 821 program policies, project application, and selection criteria are also provided with the notification. 2. SB 821 evaluation committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees (three each), meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval. 3. The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. The agencies then have 24 months to complete the projects. Any projects not completed using local sources or awarded a construction contract within the 24 months are deleted from the program and the funds are reprogrammed in the Agenda Item 8J 142 next fiscal year. There are to be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project or a project requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the city/county's control. DISCUSSION: At its July 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded $1,591,765 to fund 16 projects as part of its SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program. The agencies had until June 30, 2009, to complete the projects within this funding cycle. Temecula was allocated $132,000 for construction of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project. In May 2009, Temecula requested a 12 -month extension, which was approved by the Commission in June 2009. In May 2010, Temecula asked for a second extension, which was approved by the Commission in June 2010. Per Temecula's extension request letter, the project was also awarded federal funds as part of the Safe Routes to School program and therefore had to comply with National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental Clearance was obtained in May 2010. Temecula then submitted its request for approval to proceed with construction to Caltrans Local Assistance. Due to additional federal requirements, Temecula is requesting a third and final 12 -month extension. The 12 -month extension gives Temecula until June 30, 2012, to complete the project and claim the allocated SB 821 funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $ 132,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 601 62 86106 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \y ,1�u o� Date: 06/13/11 Attachment: 1) Letter from City of Temecula 2) City of Temecula Project Timeline 3) SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Commission Adopted Policies Agenda Item 8J • 143 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Temecula ; o Department of Public Works `e ° 41000 Main Street ■ Temecula, CA 92590 `` Mailing Address: PO. Box 9033 ■ Temecula, CA 92589-9033 X89 ,.: F� Phone (951) 694-6411 • Fax (951) 694-6475 ■ www.cityoftemecula.org 0 vEw: orb June 7, 2011 Ms. Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing — Request for Extension FY2007/2008 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Dear Ms. Edmiston; The City of Temecula requests an extension of time beyond the June 30, 2011 deadline to claim approved SB821 program funds for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Overcrossing project. In addition to the SB821 program funds, the City of Temecula was successful in obtaining additional grant funding through the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program. Due to the economic downturn the State SR2S program funds were replaced with federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. As a result, the City was tasked with administering the federal environmental processes to acquire NEPA clearance. The City of Temecula has diligently pursued environmental approval, and in May 2010, obtained environmental clearance from Caltrans. Immediately following environmental approval, we submitted our Request for Authorization (RFA) to Proceed with Construction to Caltrans, Local Assistance. Many requests from Caltrans followed, including the submittal of additional documents, revisions and permitting requirements not previously outlined as a requirement of the RFA review and approval process. The on -going delay in processes has resulted in reaching the critical deadline associated with our SB821 program funds. (Summary of Milestone Tasks — attached for your reference) Along with the SB821 deadline, we were notified by Caltrans that our project was dropped from the FTIP - Grouped Projects for HSIP programmed funds. Upon receipt of this information, we immediately pursued actions to remedy the issue. We have since coordinated with RCTC and SCAG to ensure our project is included in the Administrative Amendment No. 9 to amend the FTIP, so that the obligation of federal funding can occur. Once the amendment is approved, Caltrans Headquarters can approve our RFA package and the City of Temecula can advertise, bid and award the project for the construction phase of work. Printed on Recycled Papee R:\C1P\PROJECTSTPW05\PW05-11 SG Creek Pcd Bridge\1,etters\RCTC-SBS21-ExtensionRgst-June 201 l.ied.doe 144 Many events have impeded our progress in implementing this project, but the City is committed to fulfilling our obligation and we support the goals and objectives of the SB821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program and the Safe Routes to School program. This project is significant and extremely beneficial to the community and it provides a vital link between schools and residential neighborhoods and promotes separation of trail commuters and motorists, thereby enhancing safety. This project is fully funded and will be ready for contract bid and award immediately following reinstatement in the FTIP. We respectfully request an extension beyond the June 30, 2011 timeframe to continue our efforts to project implementation and completion. We anticipate the FTIP amendment to be approved within the next three weeks and subsequent approval from Caltrans of our RFA package to follow shortly thereafter. We are planning to award a construction contract within 90 days of approval and subsequently satisfy our claim for SB821 programs funds. Your serious consideration of our request to extend the time for a period of twelve months to claim approved funds will allow us to move forward with the construction of this much needed pedestrian facility. Sincerely, Greg Biutler Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: Jon Salazar - Associate Engineer — Capital Projects Rudy Graciano — Revenue Manager, Finance Julie Dauer — Sr. CIP Specialist, Department of Public Works Project File R:\CIP\PROJECTS\PW05\PW05-1 I SG Creek Ped Bridge \Letters\RCTC-513821-ExtensionRgst-June 2011 jcd,doc 145 ATTACHMENT 2 • • • PW05-11— Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek Project Timeline Date Milestone Remarks September 2008 Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Submitted seven (7) copies to Caltrans Local Assistance November 2008 Received comments from Caltrans regarding PES submittal Various comments received from Local Assistance, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Cultural Studies, and Biological Studies and Permits November 2008 Response to comments completed by City All items requested by Ca!trans to be addressed either by form or action to be completed by City consultant 12/2/08 Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form Approved by Caltrans, required studies identified Caltrans approved the PES, with required studies including NES(MI), Noise, Hazardous Material, Section 106, HPSR, detailed APE Map, ASR, etc. May 2009 First submittal of cultural & biological reports to Caltrans June -July 2009 Review of APE, ASR, and Cultural Studies performed by Ca!trans on first submittal Extensive comments from Ca!trans to further address ASR to SER guidelines, specific elements to be included on APE map, Native American consultation, and in-depth paleontological study is required; PIR & PER should be prepared. City consultant to further review comments and complete additional studies. October 2009 Second submittal to Caltrans January 2010 Response from Caltrans on second submittal Biological reports now appear to require extensive revision; cultural reports also again require extensive revision. More comments regarding HPSR, APE, NES(MI), etc. Note that there was a key personnel change at Caltrans between the first and second submittals March 2010 Third submittal to Caltrans April 2010 Caltrans response received (note that an expedited review was requested) Additional revisions required to cultural reports: HPSR, ASR, and Native American consultation & correspondence to be further addressed. Requires additional submittal and considerable review time. 146 4/20/10 Meeting held with Caltrans for final approval/sign-off on cultural reports Prior to this meeting, extensive phone coordination had taken place between Caltrans and the City's environmental consultant to work out all required revisions to cultural reports. It was thus anticipated that at the meeting, it would simply be verified that the reports reflected the results of the Caltrans-consultant coordination. In the meeting, Caltrans identified that formal government -to -government consultation would be required for two Native American tribes, a fact that had been previously unidentified. Caltrans provided their first notification to the tribes on 4/20/10; they have 30 days to respond. 5/20/10 Received signed CE Received notification & final signed CE from Caltrans for environmental clearance. June 2010 Submitted RFA package to Caltrans Mailed 6/18/10 RFA for Construction to Caltrans. Package included all documents required per Exhibit 3D checklist, including 3 sets of plans & specifications. July 2010 Received request from Caltrans to revise certain forms within RFA package Prepared revised originals per Caltrans request & returned 7/13/10 — Exhibit 3D — insert ROW Cert #1 —Pending & add signature on page 3-3 July 2010 Received request from Caltrans to include Exhibit 12A Prepared Exhibit 12A & submitted via e-mail 7/29/10 August 2010 Received request from Caltrans to submit revised Finance Letter Prepared revised Finance Letter to exclude PE & CE items of work — Returned revised Finance Letter 8/3/10 August 2010 Although previously advised that a USACE 404 permit would not be required for this project, Corps has determined that, as currently designed, a 404 permit will be required To avoid this requirement, a redesign of the east bridge abutment is initiated September 2010 Although never previously required, word received from Caltrans that all resource agency permits will need to be in place before processing of RFA can be completed Pursuit of resource agency permits accelerated to urgent level November 2010 Streambed Alteration Agreement (notification of none required) received from DFG January 2011 Permit waivers received from USACE and RWQCB All resource agency permitting and environmental clearances now in place 147 • • • March 2011 Notification received from Caltrans that RFA processing cannot continue until RCFCD Encroachment Permit is issued Pursuit of RCFCD Encroachment Permit accelerated to urgent level April 2011 RCFCD Encroachment Permit issued April 2011 RFA resubmitted to Caltrans Local Assistance May 2011 RFA transmitted to Caltrans Headquarters for final approval May 2011 Word received from Caltrans Headquarters that project had been dropped from FTIP Efforts underway to reinstate project to FTIP June 2011 Reinstatement of project in FTIP Coordinated efforts with RCTC, Caltrans Headquarters & SCAG to incorporate project in Amendment #9 for FTIP July 2011 RFA Approval After FTIP update, we should receive immediate approval of our RFA package from Caltrans to proceed with advertisement & award August 2011 Bid Opening In July — place advertisement for project, 2-3 weeks & record bid opening September 2011 Award Contract Award Contract at City Council meeting to lowest responsible bidder. Implement construction phase of work. December 2011 Project Completion O Based on the projected timeline, it is anticipated that the project will be complete by the end of the calendar year. 148 • • • ATTACHMENT 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES • The Commission will not allocate funds to a project in its approved SB 821 Program until the sponsoring agency awards a contract for the construction of the project or until local agency forces begin construction of the project. (12/18/86) • If funds for a project are not claimed prior to the end of the fiscal year, the project will be deleted from the program and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (12/18/86) • A project sponsor may request an extension of time beyond June 30th if substantial progress has been made on the project which, at minimum, would mean completion of preliminary engineering. (12/18/86) • Funds allocated for projects in FY 86/87 and prior years must be spent or encumbered (construction contract awarded) by December 31, 1987, or the funds and interest earned on the funds shall be returned to the SB 821 Account. (12/18/86) ***Following four policies pertain to multi -year projects*** • Cities and the County may submit applications for projects to be funded over a 2-3 year period with engineering in year 1 and construction in years 2 and 3. (9/2/87) • Multi -year projects approved in the Commission's program shall be given priority for funding in years 2-3 over new projects submitted and approved. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are not more than 15% over the initial application cost estimate, the increase will be funded by SB 821 funds, if requested by the applicant, during the development of the annual program by the Commission. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are more than 15% above the initial application estimate, the applicant may either fund costs in excess of 15% with local funds or resubmit the project as a new project for consideration by the Commission. (9/2/87) • Any unused SB 821 Program funds must be returned to the Commission unless that agency can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize the unused funds to complete approved but unfunded projects. (12/11/91) • No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously included in an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration. (12/11/91) • The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e. California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). (4/12/95) • An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also, projects requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the agency's control may receive one twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (3/12/03) RCTC: 3/20/03 149 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2011/12 Agreements for Regional Rideshare Services WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-41-140-00 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG to deliver commuter/employer rideshare services, regional ridematching services, and operation of an Inland Empire 511 (1E511) system for FY 2011/12; 2) Approve Agreement No. 10-41-029-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 10-41-029-00, with SANBAG to clarify the reimbursement relationship regarding the FY 2010/11 rideshare/lE511 agreement; 3) Approve the following agreements for regional ridematching services: • Agreement No. 09-41-075-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 09-41-075-00, with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); • Agreement No. 11-41-139-00 with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA); and • Agreement No. 06-41-082-06, Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 06-41-082-00, with the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC); and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 1993, SANBAG has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement and manage a commuter assistance program (CAP) for San Bernardino County commuters. The program consists of several projects: Agenda Item 8K 150 • The first, Rideshare Incentives, developed as a "sister" incentive project to the Commission's Measure A commuter incentive project, focuses on encouraging solo drivers to try alternative commute modes. • RideshareP/us, modeled after the Commission's rideshare rewards program, provides discounts at local merchants and entertainment venues for long-term ridesharers. • In/and Empire Commuter Services (IECS) was jointly established by SANBAG and the Commission in FY 1995/96 when it was determined by the two agencies that the Inland Empire would assume direct responsibility for the provision of local employer rideshare services. IECS provides various services to employers in the bi-county area including the provision of marketing promotions, rideshare survey processing, technical assistance, employer network meetings and electronic newsletters. • In FY 2002/03, the Commission and SANBAG began providing Ridematching and Te/eservices directly. • In FY 2009/10, /E511 was implemented to provide traveler information to Riverside and San Bernardino County commuters. In partnership with SANBAG, a FY 2011/12 work plan and budget for continuation of SANBAG's CAP and the ongoing maintenance and operation of a 511 travel information services system was developed by Commission staff. The proposed agreement between SANBAG and the Commission was approved by SANBAG's Board at its June 1, 2011 meeting. This approval includes an allocation of Measure I and CMAQ funds for these services. Staff is seeking Commission approval to amend its agreement with SANBAG for a total not to exceed amount of $1.8 million reimbursed to the Commission. Also approved at SANBAG's June 2011 board meeting was an amendment to the language within the existing FY 2010/11 rideshare/IE51 1 agreement between the Commission and SANBAG to clarify that the Commission is not a subrecipient of SANBAG's federal funds. Instead, the new language will reflect that SANBAG may use these federal funds to reimburse the Commission for its services. Upon Commission approval, this new language will be amended in the existing FY 2010/11 agreement and incorporated into the new FY 2011/12 agreement. The Commission's role in transportation demand management also extends beyond the boundaries of the Inland Empire. Since 2002, the Commission has led the way in implementing, operating, and maintaining the regional rideshare database (regional database) to support a coordinated and efficient ridematching service throughout a five -county region. Specifically, this entails processing commuter surveys, data retrieval, project reporting, rideguide generation, network security, system maintenance and operation. Metro, OCTA, SANBAG, and VCTC have contracted with the Commission for the administration of the regional database for the past nine years. Agenda Item 8K • 151 • • Funding of the regional database is split among the five county transportation commissions based on population percentage split. SANBAG's portion of this work is included in the rideshare/IE511 agreement discussed above. Metro and VCTC are in the process of amending and seeking approval of their respective agreements with the Commission to extend the term through FY 2011/12. OCTA is in the process of drafting a new two-year agreement with the Commission for approval. Staff is seeking Commission approval to enter into agreements with the four county transportation commissions for FY 2011/12 services by the Commission for an aggregate amount not to exceed $349,000 as reimbursements to the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $2,149,000 Source of Funds: SANBAG, Metro, OCTA and VCTC funds Budget Ad ustment: No 002111/002112/632113/002127/002139/002146/002178/002182/ 002186/002188/002191/002193 414 41403 0000 263 41 41401 GLA No.: 452124 416 41605 0000 202 45 41203 452124 414 41403 0000 202 45 41401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \lie,ia, Date: 06/14/11 Attachments: 1) FY 2011/12 SANBAG Agreement and Scope of Work 2) FY 2010/11 SANBAG Amendment 3) FY 2011/12 Regional Ridematch Database Services Scope of Work Agenda Item 8K 152 ATTACHMENT 1 • • • AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 EMPLOYER AND COMMUTER TRIP REDUCTION/RIDESHARE PROGRAMS THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this 15t day of July 2011, in the State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS, referred to herein as "SANBAG," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, referred to herein as "RCTC." WHEREAS, SANBAG approved allocation of Measure I - Valley Traffic Management and Environmental Enhancement (TMEE) funds and Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act — A Legacy to Users (SAFE -TEA LU) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, the allocation of SAFE -TEA LU (initially approved in October of 2005 by SANBAG board), to provide trip reduction services as well as incentives for the commuter programs; and, WHEREAS, SANBAG receives SAFE -TEA LU and other federal funds and may use these funds to reimburse RCTC for its services in performing Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services and RCTC will comply with all applicable federal requirements concerning these federal funds including the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Title No. 20.205. WHEREAS, SANBAG requires professional and consulting services with respect to the provision of commuter services and programs within San Bernardino County; and, WHEREAS, RCTC has managed the bi-county Inland Empire Commuter Services program since November 3, 1993, and has the expertise and resources necessary to manage such services for SANBAG. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. Contract Services. 1. RCTC will administer, market, and implement a commuter services and 511 programs in coordination with RCTC's commuter services program and in coordination with the regional ridesharing core services program in compliance with and as specified in the scope of work, Attachment "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. RCTC shall provide program administration and oversight and assure that its consultants and/or staff performs its services within the budgets set forth in the scope of work, Attachment "A." C12001.docx 61 153 Page 1 of of 3. RCTC shall provide SANBAG with a monthly statistical report of progress relative to tasks identified in the scope of work, Attachment "A", to this Agreement and in such detail as may be approved by SANBAG. B. Compensation. 1. It is understood that SANBAG funding for the program under this Agreement will not exceed one million eight hundred thousand, and no cents ($1,800,000.00) and is being provided from the following sources: (a) One million five hundred and ninety-three thousand, five hundred and forty dollars and no cents ($1,593,540) from CMAQ funds, and (b) Two hundred and six thousand, four hundred, sixty dollars and no cents ($206,460.00) from San Bernardino County local ' cent sales tax, Measure I - Valley Funds. 2. RCTC shall follow all federal laws, regulations, as well as requirements imposed by SANBAG, as it pertains to the expenditure of SAFE -TEA LU funds as well as their subrecipient status. RCTC shall meet the Single Audit and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-133 requirements for this fiscal year. 3. It is agreed that SANBAG Measure I Funds will reimburse RCTC for the cost of purchasing any items not reimbursable by CMAQ, and invoices submitted to SANBAG shall clearly delineate CMAQ non -reimbursable expenditures. It is agreed that in the event sufficient funds from the sources set forth in (a) and (b) above do not become available to SANBAG for this Agreement, SANBAG may immediately terminate this Agreement with written notice, but shall pay to RCTC from other sources any amounts required to cover RCTC's costs to the date of Agreement termination. 4. SANBAG shall pay RCTC on a cost -reimbursement basis, based upon invoices which delineate charges based on tasks identified in the scope of work, Attachment "A." All invoices shall be provided to SANBAG no more frequently than on a bi-monthly basis and no less than a quarterly basis. 5. SANBAG shall be fully responsible for obtaining cost reimbursements of CMAQ funds. SANBAG shall monitor RCTC, as necessary, to ensure that the SAFE -TEA LU funds are used for authorized purposes in compliance with laws, regulations, and the provision of the terms in this agreement, and that performance goals are achieved. RCTC shall provide to SANBAG its annual audit report and should there be any findings, RCTC shall ensure SANBAG that it has taken all appropriate and timely corrective action. 6. SANBAG shall review all billings submitted by RCTC for accuracy and process payment based thereon to RCTC in a timely manner. 7. RCTC shall maintain during the term of this Agreement and for three years thereafter accounting records which cover the receipt and disbursement of all funds provided for the programs administered and implemented under this Agreement. Such records shall be made available for inspection during normal business hours by duly authorized representatives of SANBAG, SANBAG's auditors, Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration, and the United States Department of Transportation, so that SANBAG can comply with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular No. A-133. • • • C12001.docx B2 Page 2 of it 624 i • • • C. Term. 1. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2011 and terminate on June 30, 2012, unless it is extended by a written amendment approved by the parties. 2. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other for no or any reason, including, but not limited to, changes in legislation, rules and regulations impacting trip reduction programs. SANBAG shall pay for any service provided up to the effective date of the termination. 3. The Executive Directors of both RCTC and SANBAG shall have the authority in their sole discretion to give notice of termination on behalf of their respective agencies. D. Indemnification and Insurance. 1. (a) It is understood and agreed that neither RCTC nor any officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, or volunteer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANBAG shall fully defend, indemnify' and save harmless RCTC, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents"s from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or or account of injury (as defined in Governmem Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. (b) It is understood and agreed that neither SANBAG nor any officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, or volunteer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANBAG, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC or its consultants under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. 2. Insurance Requirements Without anyway affecting the indemnity provision identified in this Contract, RCTC shall, at the RCTC's sole expense, and prior to the commencement of any work, procure and maintain in full force, insurance through the entire term of this Agreement. and shall be written with at least the following limits of liability: C12001.docx (a) Professional Liability - Shall be provided in an amount not less than $1,000,000, per claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. RCTC shall secure and maintain this insurance or "tail" coverage provided throughout the term of this Contract and for a minimum of three (3) years after Contract completion. (b) Workers' Compensation - Worker's Compensation insurance shall be provided in an amount and form to meet all applicable requirements of the Labor Code of the State of Page 3 of $ 63 155 California, including Employers Liability with $250,000 limits, covering all persons providing services on behalf of ROTC and all risks to such persons under this Agreement. (c) Commercial General Liability - To include coverage for Premises and Operations, Contractual Liability, Personal Injury Liability, Products/Completed Operations Liability, Broad -Form Property Damage and Independent Contractors' Liability, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limit, and $2,000,000 in the aggregate written on an occurrence form. For products and completed operations a $2,000,000 aggregate shall be provided. (d) Automobile Liability - To include owned, non -owned and hired automobiles, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limit, and in the aggregate written on an occurrence form. (e) Network and Privacy Insurance. RCTC shall carry, or shall cause its third party contractor to carry, Network and Privacy (Errors and Omissions) insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 in the annual aggregate, protecting RCTC and SANBAG from the following exposures relating to RCTC's or any of its subcontractors performance under the Agreement: (i) the theft, dissemination and/or unauthorized disclosure of use of confidential information and personally identifiable information (not to be limited bank information, social security numbers, health information, credit card account information, and confidential corporate information). Such insurance shall also include coverage for credit monitoring, notification expenses and other related costs associated with mitigating a data security or privacy breach; and (ii) the introduction of a computer virus into, or otherwise causing damage to, a computer, computer system, network or similar computer -related property and the data, software, and programs used herein. If such insurance is maintained on an occurrence basis, RCTC or its third party contractor shall maintain such insurance for an additional period of one year following the end of the applicable Term. If such insurance is maintained on a claims -made basis, RCTC or its third party contractor shall maintain such insurance for an additional period of three year following the end of the applicable Term. (f). Umbrella/Excess Liability Insurance: Proof of Coverage- RCTC shall furnish certificates of insurance to SANBAG evidencing the insurance coverage required above, prior to the commencement of performance of services hereunder, and such certificates shall include San Bernardino Associated Governments/San Bernardino County Transportation Authority) as additional insured on Comprehensive General Liability Insurance or Commercial General Liability Insurance and auto insurance. Prior to commencing any work, RCTC shall furnish SANBAG with a certificate(s) of insurance, executed by a duly authorized representative of each insurer, showing compliance with the insurance requirements set forth in this Article. If the insurance company elects to cancel or non -renew coverage for any reason, the CONSULTANT will provide SANBAG 30 days' notice of such cancellation or nonrenewal. If the policy is cancelled for nonpayment of premium, the RCTC will provide SANBAG ten (10) days' notice. RCTC shall maintain such insurance from the • • • C12001.docx Page 4 of q ��6 • • • time RCTC commences performance of services hereunder until the completion of such Services. All certificates of insurance are to include the contract number and Project Manager' name. (g) Additional Insured- All policies, except for Workers Compensation and Professional Liability policies, shall contain endorsements naming SANBAG and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds with respect to liabilities arising out to the performance of Services hereunder. The additional insured endorsements shall not limit the scope of coverage for SANBAG to vicarious liability but shall allow coverage for SANBAG to the full extent provided by the policy. (h) Waiver of Subrogation Rights - RCTC shall require the carriers of the above required coverages to waive all rights of subrogation against SANBAG, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers, contractors, and subcontractors. All general auto liability insurance coverage provided shall not prohibit RCTC or CONSULTANT'S employees or agents from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss or claim. CONSULTANT hereby waives all rights of subrogation against SANBAG. (i) All policies required herein are to be primary and non-contributory with any insurance carried or administered by SANBAG. (j) Certificates/Insurer Rating/Cancellation Notice. (1) RCTC shall maintain and shall require its consultants to maintain such insurance from the time the Services commence until the Services are completed, except as may be otherwise required by this Section. (2) RCTC may legally self -insure, but shall require its consultants to place insurance with insurers having an A.M. Best Company rating of no less than A: VIII and licensed to do business in California. (3) RCTC and its consultants shall replace certificates, policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to completion of the Services. E. Rights of SANBAG and RCTC. The Executive Directors of both SANBAG and RCTC shall have full authority to exercise their respective entity's rights under this contract. F. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality/Use of Data. (1) Ownership. All materials and data, including data on magnetic media, prepared by RCTC under this Agreement shall become the common property of the RCTC and SANBAG. RCTC and SANBAG shall not be limited in any way in its use of such data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at the respective party's sole risk and provided that the other party shall be indemnified against any damages resulting from such use, including the release of this material to third parties for a use not intended by this Agreement. Neither party to this Agreement shall sell the data or other materials prepared under this Agreement without the written permission of both parties. Cl20ol.docx Page 5 of 65 157 (2) Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other materials described in subsection (1) either created by or provided to RCTC in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by RCTC. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of SANBAG, be used by RCTC for any purposes other, than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services. Nothing furnished to RCTC that is otherwise known to RCTC or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. RCTC shall not use SANBAG's name or insignia, photographs of the project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of SANBAG. (3) Use of Data. All data shall be provided to SANBAG in hard copy and electronic media. Data in electronic media shall be provided in a form that will allow SANBAG to use, access, and manipulate the data to prepare reports and perform other ride matching activities contemplated by this Agreement. G. Independent Contractor. SANBAG retains RCTC on an independent contractor basis and RCTC and its consultants shall not be employees of SANBAG. The consultants and other personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of RCTC shall at all times -be under RGTC's exclusive direction and control. ROTC shall -pay all -wages, salaries, and other amounts due its employees in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. RCTC shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such employees, including, but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. H. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and attorneys' fees directly arising from any third party legal action against a party hereto and payable under Paragraph 3E, Indemnification and Insurance. I. Consent. Whenever consent or approval of any party is required under this Agreement, that party shall not unreasonably withhold nor delay such consent or approval. • C12001.docx 8 Page 6 ofEj • IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED AND EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Brad Mitzelfelt, President Greg Pettis, Chairman • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM SANBAG Penny Al C12001.docx APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM FOR RCTC , SANBAG Counsel Best, Best & Krieger, LLP, General Counsel 67 159 Page 7 of I • Attachment "A " • Scope of Work San Bernardino Employer and Commuter Assistance Programs Fiscal Year 2011-12 Inland Empire Rideshare Services Provide a variety of services to employers and commuters, who participate in trip reduction activities. Activities shall include, but not be limited to: RideGuide/survey services, employer technical assistance, promotions, RideGuide production, coordination/dissemination of surveys and resulting report analysis for target marketing, Rideshare Connection broadcast e -mails, CommuteSmart News, networking meetings and coordination with other rideshare agencies and service providers. Assist multi -site and multi jurisdictional headquarters employers within the County as well as related worksites outside of the County. Oversee and maintain a regional website (CommuteSmart.info), IE511.org website, social media platforms, and other regional products/outreach as assigned. Respond to inquiries generated from 511, 1 -800 -COMMUTE, 1- 866-RIDESHARE, CommuteSmart.info, as well as direct referrals. Oversee and maintain a regional database of commuters, working with the five county transportation commission's (CTCs) throughout the region. Market the regional Guaranteed Ride Home Program to employers in San Bernardino County. Assist in the County's leased Park'N'Ride lot program. Operate the 511 program through phone and web services, providing enhancements, resolving issues, conducting marketing and periodic surveys. Conduct special projects and studies, as assigned. Related Expenses ($1,035,774): Includes labor, office expenses, marketing materials, office equipment, computer programming, telephone and other direct expenses. Goals: 1. Implementation of commuter assistance programs to approximately 380 regulated and non -regulated employer worksites in San Bernardino County, to assist in the development and implementation of trip reduction programs and for technical assistance. 2. Work with 85 employers on AVR/Transportation surveys and AVR calculations. 3. Maintain an accurate database of 57,000 active San Bernardino County commuter registrants, resulting from completed commuter surveys at 85 San Bernardino County employers. 4. Disseminate 17,000 RideGuides to San Bernardino County commuters at 380 worksites. 5. Provide assistance to five multisite/multijurisdictional headquarters located in San Bernardino County representing 18 worksites in San Bernardino, Riverside, as well as Los Angeles and Orange counties. C12001.docx Page 8 ofq 6. Develop and implement three employer transportation network meetings, one promotional marketing campaign at San Bernardino employer worksites, and other events. 7. Produce and disseminate other regional marketing materials, as standalone campaigns within the Inland Empire or regional campaigns in coordination with the five CTCs. 8. Broadcast 14 Rideshare Connection a -mails to San Bernardino County employers. 9. For the two -county area, respond to 2,000 inquires/calls from commuters who work or reside in San Bernardino or Riverside counties, via 1-866-RIDESHARE, 1 -800 -COMMUTE, CommuteSmart.info, 511, direct referrals and other internet sources. Of these 2,000 inquiries, 360 RideGuides will be generated. In addition, 500 Inland residents will register in the database via the www.CommuteSmart.info and the www.ie511.org website. 10. Manage and operate the 511 system which will be available to commuters 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. 11. The 511 phone system will provide assistance to 7,200 callers per month throughout the year. The system will have the capacity to handle 100,000 concurrent callers. 12. The www.ie511.org website will potentially receive 6,400 unique visitors per month . Website will be able to handle 100,000 concurrent users. 13. Continue 511 marketing/outreach. 14. Conduct periodic surveys to determine the 511 program use, effectiveness and customer satisfaction. 15. Provide website and phone enhancements/upgrades as needed. Rideshare Incentive Programs Option Rideshare offers San Bernardino County residents who commute to work, up to $2 a day (in local merchant gift cards) for each day they participate in a rideshare mode, during a three- month period. The Vanpool Incentive Program provides up to $1,800 over nine months in discounted vanpool fares. Team Ride provides ongoing ridesharers who reside in San Bernardino County a Rideshare Plus Rewards Book, with discount coupons from more than 135,000 merchants throughout the Southland. Related Expenses ($764,226): Includes labor, office expenses, marketing materials, office equipment, computer programming, telephone, direct commuter incentives (gift cards/ subsidies) and other direct expenses. Goals: 1. The Option Rideshare program will enlist 1,490 County residents, who commute to work to 150 employers in Southern California. These participants on average have a one-way commute distance of 27.59 miles and the goal is to reduce 136,000 one way vehicle trips from the roadways. 2. Team Ride registrants will consist of 8,000 members by the end of December 2010, when the program is at its highest membership. Members will work at employment sites from 380 employers throughout Southern California. c12001.docx Page 9 of ci 69 161 • • • ATTACHMENT 2 • AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT 09-190 (1000152) BY AND BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY EMPLOYER AND COMMUTER TRIP REDUCTION/RIDESHARE PROGRAMS • • This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 09-190 ("Contract") is entered into as of June 1, 2011, by and between San Bernardino Associated Governments ("SANBAG") and the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"). WHERAS, SANBAG and RCTC have previously entered into the Contract 09-190, as amended by Amendment No. 1, wherein SANBAG engaged RCTC to implement and manage the bi- county Inland Empire Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Programs; and, WHEREAS, SANBAG and RCTC desire to amend the Contract to modify language that defines, in part, their contractual relationship. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the Contract in the following manner: 1. Delete entirely the third Recital on page one: "WHEREAS, RCTC is a sub recipient of SANBAG SAFE -TEA LU funds, and shall adhere to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Title No. 20.205; and," 2. Add a new third Recital on page one that states: "WHEREAS, SANBAG receives SAFE -TEA LUand other federal funds and may use these funds to reimburse RCTC for its services in performing Employer and Commuter Trip Reduction/Rideshare Services and RCTC will comply with all applicable federal requirements concerning these federal funds including the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Title No. 20.205" 3. Except as Amended by this Amendment No. 2, all other provisions of Contract 09-190 remain in full force and effect. C09190-02.docx 56 162 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the authorized parties have below signed and executed this Amendment No. 2, and shall be effective on the date set forth above. SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Brad Mitzelfelt, SANBAG President Greg Pettis, RCTC Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM FOR SANBAG FOR RCTC Penny Ale . de elly SANBAG ' •, nsel c09190-02.docx Best, Best & Krieger, LLP General Counsel • ATTACHMENT 3 • Riverside County Transportation Commission REGIONAL RIDEMATCH DATABASE SERVICES FY 11/12 SCOPE OF WORK • Manage the regional ridematch database system and parallel school database system on behalf of and in partnership with the County Transportation Commission's (CTC's). Each database will be secured from tampering yet accessible to users needs with timely and accurate software. Monitor and maintain the performance of the hardware and connectivity software of the regional ridematch local area network, web facing servers, Citrix servers, ridematching website and Exchange server. Maintenance of the ridematching and school software will be coordinated with the software vendor, Trapeze, and their designated product support staff. Monitor network and server performance to ensure that quality and throughput are optimum and that system integrity is maintained. Task 1: Manage and coordinate the regional rideshare database system in partnership with the CTC's to ensure the effective delivery of ridematching services to employers, TMA's and commuters of the five county region. Coordinate software and database maintenance and installation of enhancements. Work with CTC staffs to identify needs or program refinements on an annual basis, including AVR Program refinements as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and/or Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). Work with Trapeze staff to develop programs to satisfy identified needs, and to install and test them. Install periodic updates from Trapeze. Monitor the system and augment security and data access controls as needed to maintain the confidentiality of information, including an annual vulnerability and penetration test by a contractor secured by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Task includes travel expense for three visits per year to each CTC office, if necessary, and annual license maintenance fees. Also includes the annual cost of testing for web site security against a hack attack. a. Review RidePro error logs on a daily basis, assess error messages to determine next steps, take action with the appropriate entities (i.e., internal action, CTC's or Trapeze support staff) to secure resolution of issues. b. Install product updates and enhancements including customized programming authorized by CTC's. Provide testing of new programs and enhancements to ensure that programs are functioning correctly and that any program compatibility issues are resolved. c. Maintain annual "Wish List" of programming needs and coordinate programming, installation and testing with Trapeze staff. d. Monitor performance of the servers, routers and switches to ensure system is operating at peak performance. 1 164 e. Review all security logs as they are collected via GFI. f. Work with selected contractor to facilitate web testing for security. g. Report any system downtime to CTC's. h. Up to three visits per year to each CTC location for system maintenance. i. Facilitate collective policy decisions relating to operational and procedural functionality of the system. j. Provide liaison between the CTC's and the SCAQMD for maintenance and required updates to the AVR functions of the databases. k. Coordinate with CTC technical staffs regarding hardware specifications and conformity. 1. Produce Monthly Rideshare Services Report of regional ridematching activity. Task 2: Maintain the address geo-coding database for translation of street addresses and intersections into geographic references for ridematching, mapping, and other geographic referential products. On a bi-annual basis include a zip code overlay in the update of the digital base maps. Zip code overlay will be purchased and implemented by Trapeze. a. Coordinate annual updates of digital base maps with CTC's and Trapeze. b. Identify and resolve any discrepancies in digital base maps in response to geocoding anomalies. Task 3: Maintain computer software (i.e., RidePro administrative tracking) to accurately and concisely track rideshare database activities and services for reporting to CTC's. a. Quarterly rideshare database report including website activity. Task 4: Provide technical and help desk support services to CTC staffs. Provide assistance with troubleshooting of problems related to functionality of software and/or wide area network connectivity. Provide training or instructional materials on new programs and functions within the RidePro and AVR databases to CTC staffs. a. Respond daily to on-line and telephone technical inquires and trouble reports. b. Assess source of reported problems, determine appropriate actions, and facilitate resolution by appropriate staff. c. Prepare and distribute quarterly summary of reported problems and actions taken. 2 • 165 • d. Provide "help" information as needed to all users. e. Provide liaison between CTC's and Trapeze product support staff. Task 5: A. Operating Equipment Maintain computer system hardware, consistent with the specifications provided by Trapeze Software and agreed to by the CTC's, to accommodate the regional rideshare database, and the implementation and operation of the LocalArea Network. Repair or replace hardware items as needed or as recommended by the "End of Life" (EOL) cycle by the product manufacture (no longer supported). 1. Periodic hardware and software maintenance of Database Servers, Storage Area Network, two Citrix Terminal Services Servers for remote access, Web Server, Job Process Server, workstation for network administration, and various routers, firewalls and switches as needed. B. Network Connectivity • • Maintain the configuration of four bonded Tl lines, connection to efficiently operate the LAN/WAN. 1. Monitor and troubleshoot operation of four bonded Tl Circuits for Ridematching Website access and for access to Terminal Services Server via Citrix. 2. Monitor and troubleshoot access lines to ensure operational integrity and security. On -going analysis of capacity issues and recommendations for additions or improvements. 3 166 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendments to Freeway Service Patrol Agreements WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Amendment No. 07-45-134-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 07-45-134-00, with Pepe's Towing to provide freeway service patrol (FSP) services on Beat No. 4 in the amount of $180,000; 2) Approve Amendment No. 06-45-046-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 06-45-046-00, with Tri-City Towing to provide FSP services for Beat No. 8 in the amount of $100,000 and to extend the term of the agreement through December 31, 2011; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its May 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded two Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) contracts to Armada Towing (Armada) for tow truck service on Beat Nos. 4 and 8. Beat No. 4 operates with three trucks on State Route 91 between Magnolia Avenue in Riverside and the 60/91/215 interchange. This includes FSP midday coverage and nighttime closure support during the construction of SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard interchange improvements. Beat No. 8 operates with two trucks on SR -60 between the 60/215 interchange and Theodore Street in Moreno Valley. Each contract awarded was for a three-year term with two one-year options to extend the agreements. DISCUSSION Last month, staff met with Armada to discuss its performance on Beat Nos. 4 and 8. In particular, staff was not satisfied with the amount of downtime experienced on these beats. In instances of downtime, an operator is penalized at three times Agenda Item 8L 167 the hourly rate in one minute increments; however, the major concern for staff is that motorists are not being assisted during these periods. Armada placed the blame for the downtime on the trucks that it purchased to service these beats. Staff asked if there was an opportunity for Armada to remedy the truck issues to eliminate downtime issues; however, Armada was not confident that it could fulfill that request. Ultimately, Armada made a business decision to opt out of the second and final option year of its contract. Staff approached the other tow operators currently in the FSP program, Pepe's Towing and Tri-City Towing, to inquire if they had the equipment and the resources available to provide temporary coverage on Beat Nos. 4 and 8 until these beats could be competitively bid and awarded. Both FSP operators provided assurances that they could cover these beats during the procurement process. Contractually, this work could be provided through existing contracts with Pepe's and Tri-City under the extra work provision. Staff released a request for proposals for FSP tow services on Beat Nos. 4, 7, and 8 on July 1. Therefore, coverage of these beats will be needed for a six-month period. Accordingly, staff recommends amending Agreement No. 07-45-134-00 with Pepe's Towing to add $ 180,000 to support coverage on Beat No. 4 that includes incremental FSP service during construction of SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard interchange improvements. Staff also recommends amending Agreement No. 06-45-046-00 with Tri-City Towing to add $ 100,000 solely to support coverage on Beat No. 8 and to extend the contract term to December 31, 2011. These beat assignments are based on proximity of the FSP operators' office location to Beat Nos. 4 and 8. Lastly, this beat reallocation will result in a net savings; therefore, a budget adjustment will not be required. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $280,000 Source of Funds: State of California - 80% SAFE DMV Fees - 20% Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 201 45 81014 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \/ ic°,u Date: 06/14/11 Attachment: 1) Draft Amendment No. 07-45-134-03 with Pepe's Towing 2) Draft Amendment No. 06-45-046-04 with Tri-City Towing Agenda Item 8L • • • 168 • Agreement No. 07-45-134-03 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENT WITH PEPE'S TOWING FOR TOW TRUCK SERVICE ON BEAT NO. 18 AND BEAT NO. 4 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for Tow Truck Services is made and entered into as of July 1, 2011, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION acting as the SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES ("SAFE"), a public entity, and PEPE'S TOWING ("Contractor"), a California corporation. 2. RECITALS • • 2.1 SAFE and the Contractor entered into an agreement dated July 1, 2007 for the purpose of providing freeway service patrol services for Beat No. 18 (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 SAFE and Contractor have entered into an Amendment No. 1 dated July 1, 2010 for the purpose of extending the term and providing additional compensation for the continued provision of freeway service patrol services. 2.3 SAFE and Contractor have entered into an Amendment No. 2 dated July 1, 2011 for the purpose of extending the term and providing additional compensation for the continued provision of freeway service patrol services. 2.4 SAFE and Contractor now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to provide additional freeway service patrol services and to provide additional compensation for the added services. 3. TERMS 3.1 The Scope of Services for the Master Agreement shall be amended to include the Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, required to provide freeway service patrol services for Beat 4, as more fully described in this Amendment No. 3. 17336 00027336.0002A\59 14036 2 169 3.2 Freeway service patrol services for Beat 4 to be performed pursuant to this Amendment No. 3 include service on State Route 91 between Magnolia Avenue in Riverside and the 60/91/215 interchange and includes mid -day coverage and night time closure support during the construction of the SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard interchange improvements. 3.3 The term for services on Beat 4 shall be for a six month term only, commencing on July 1, 2011 and ending on December 31, 2011. 3.4 The hourly rate, as set forth in Section 3.0 of the Master Agreement, for services provided under this Amendment shall be Fifty -One Dollars and No Cents ($51.00) per hour. 3.5 The maximum compensation to be provided under this Amendment shall be One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000.00). Compensation shall be paid in the same manner as provided for in the Master Agreement. 3.6 Freeway service patrol services shall be performed and provided pursuant to the Master Agreement. 3.7 Pepe's Inc. agrees and acknowledges that, since it is doing business with SAFE as Pepe's Towing Service, a fictitious business name, Pepe's Inc. is liable and responsible for all obligations of "Contractor" as set forth under the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, and this Amendment No. 3. 3.8 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 3, all provisions of the Master Agreement and all previous amendments, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. 17336.0002A\5914036.2 2 • 170 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first herein written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PEPE'S INC. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION d/b/a PEPE'S TOWING ACTING AS THE SERVICE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES By: By, Gregory S. Pettis, Chair (Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: • By: Best Best & Krieger LLP, General Counsel • 3 17336.0002A\5914036.2 171 • Agreement No. 06-45-046-04 • • AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENT WITH TRI CITY TOWING, INC. FOR TOW TRUCK SERVICE ON BEAT NO. 2 AND BEAT NO. 8 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement for Freeway Service Patrol Services is made and entered into as of this day of 2011, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") acting as the SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES ("SAFE") and TRI-CITY TOWING, INC. ("Contractor"), ,a California corporation. 2. RECITALS 2.1 SAFE and the Contractor entered into an agreement dated July 3, 2006 for the purpose of providing freeway service patrol services for Beat No.; 2 (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 SAFE and the Contractor entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Master Agreement dated June 1, 2009 for the purpose of extending the term of the Master Agreement for an additional twelve (12) months through June 30, 2010 and for the provision of additional compensation for the continued provision of freeway service patrol services. 2.3 SAFE and the Contractor entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Master Agreement dated September 2, 2009 for the purpose of additional funding to reimburse Contractor for one (1) additional truck added to Beat No. 2 from May 14, 2009 through June 30, 2009. 2.4 SAFE and the Contractor entered into Amendment No. 3 to the Master Agreement dated July 1, 2010 for the purpose extending the term for an additional twelve (12) months through June 30, 2011 and for the provision of additional compensation for the continued provision of freeway service patrol services. 172 • 2.5 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to provide additional freeway service patrol services, extend the term and to provide additional compensation for the provision of freeway service patrol services. 3. TERMS 3.1 The Scope of Services for the Master Agreement shall be amended to include the Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, required to provide freeway services patrol services for Beat 8, as more fully described in this Amendment No.4. 3.2 Freeway service patrol services for Beat 8 to be performed pursuant to this Amendment No. 4 include service on State Route 60 between the 60/215 interchange and Theodore Street in Moreno Valley. 3.3 The term of the Master Agreement shall be amended to provide for an additional term of six months, commencing on July 1, 2011 and ending on December 31, 2011 to allow for Beat 8 service. 3.4 The maximum compensation to be provided under this Amendment No. 4 shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), without written approval by the Commission's Executive Director. 3.5 The hourly rate for services provide under this Amendment No. 4 shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per hour. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 4, all provisions of the Master Agreement and all previous Amendments, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. 3.6 173 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES Gregory S. Pettis, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel TRI-CITY TOWING INC. Signature Name Title 174 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) SB 446 (Dutton) - Support; b) HR 1825 (Blumenauer) - Support; and c) S. 1034 (Schumer) - Support. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update Stopgap Budget Approved on Party Line Vote Governor Brown and Democrats in the state Legislature finally came to an agreement on a budget in late June, but only after the Governor vetoed the proposal that had received legislative approval. In addition to the veto, State Controller John Chiang withheld Legislator's salary for failing to approve a budget by the June 15 deadline. The new budget proposal is silent on the Governor's original goal of extending recent state tax increases, presents more budget cuts, and also assumes that the state will realize an additional $4 billion in state tax revenue. While most observers believe that this budget is a temporary stopgap action that fails to address the state's long-term budget, spending and revenue problems, there appears to be a general consensus on the treatment of transportation issues. The budget includes the appropriation of $ 1 billion in Proposition 1B bond funding in anticipation of a bond sale. There is also a general consensus on the need for improved oversight and changes regarding the administration of the state's Agenda Item 8M 175 high-speed rail effort although one bit of negative news is that no funding has been included for additional environmental work on the high-speed rail segment between Los Angeles and San Diego. Legislature Approves Assembly Joint Resolution 4 Assembly Joint Resolution 4, authored by Assembly Member Jeff Miller (R -Corona), which expresses the California Legislature's support for a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) grant for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project was approved by the Senate on June 14, and will be sent to President Obama and Secretary LaHood. In many instances, TIFIA funding is often supported by state interests. The approval of the resolution adds a level of state support making the Commission's TIFIA application even more compelling to evaluators in Washington, D.C. SB 4-46 — Creation of Ontario International Airport Authority While officials in Los Angeles have often stated their support for "regionalizing" passenger air traffic in Southern California, the recent experience of Ontario International Airport paints a far different picture regarding air travel in Southern California. Passenger travel through Ontario International Airport has declined by more than a third since 2007. While a significant portion of the decline can be attributed to the economy, an opposing argument can be made that a lack of support for the Ontario International Airport is hindering a local economic recovery. SB 446 by Senate Minority Leader Bob Dutton (R -Rancho Cucamonga) seeks to bring Ontario International Airport under local control through the creation of a new joint powers authority comprised of seven members appointed by the Ontario City Council and the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. The language allows for a specified number of members to be appointed who are, ". . .representatives of the primary air service market served by Ontario International Airport and need not be persons residing in the City of Ontario or the County of San Bernardino," thus allowing for representation from the larger Inland Empire area. The Commission's legal jurisdiction regarding air traffic is essentially non-existent. The Commission is strictly a surface transportation agency; however the area's economy depends on access to air travel and the Commission recognizes the need to fully utilize assets such as the airports in Ontario and Palm Springs, as well as the extensive network of general aviation and freight facilities. Senator Dutton's bill seeks to realize the value of the asset through local input and control while requiring close cooperation among local agencies including the city of Los Angeles, which currently operates the facility. Agenda Item 8M • • 176 • • • Federal Update For a number of years, the Commission has been on record in supporting efforts to provide more latitude for employers to offer commuting incentives on a pre-tax basis. This allows employers to provide benefits that include transit passes, subsidies for vanpool costs and other commuting expenses that are exempt up to a certain level from taxation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - commonly known as the stimulus bill - raised the limit on what can be excluded from personal income taxes from $120 per month to $230 per month. The raise in the limit was temporary and is set to expire at the end of this year. HR 1825 by Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D -Oregon) and S. 1034 by Senator Charles Schumer (D -New York) will extend the current programs until 2014. This is consistent with the Commission's legislative platform adopted in December 2010, which states: "Congress should approve tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management programs and alternative fuel programs to promote the use of alternate modes of transportation." Both of the federal bil►s were recently introduced and no committee hearings are scheduled in the immediate future. Agenda Item 8M 177 • • • I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: FROM: THROUGH: Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Standby Bond Purchase Agreements Related to the 2009 Bonds BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file a report on the proposed amendments, including the Fee Letter, to each of the three Standby Bond Purchase Agreements (SBPAs) between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan), as liquidity facility provider for the 2009 Bonds; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 11-010, "Resolution Authorizing the Release of All or a Portion of the Debt Service Reserve Fund Related to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series A, 2009 Series B, and 2009 Series C, the Execution and Delivery of a Fourth Supplemental Indenture, an Offering Memorandum, and the Taking of All Other Actions Necessary in Connection Therewith"; 3) Approve the draft Offering Memorandum related to the remarketing of the 2009 Bonds; 4) Approve the draft Fourth Supplemental Indenture between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, and authorize the Executive Director to approve and execute the final Fourth Supplemental Indenture; and 5) Approve the estimated costs to be incurred in connection with the amendments to be paid from 2009 Measure A Bond Financing Program funds and the execution of related agreements, as required. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its August 2009 meeting, the Commission authorized the issuance of $185 million in sales tax revenue bonds. The bonds were issued in October 2009 as variable rate bonds in three series - A, B, and C - which require liquidity support, with a final maturity in June 2029. As a variable rate debt issue, the Agenda Item 9 178 2009 Bonds were integrated with the interest rate swaps executed in 2006 and 2008 that became effective in October 2009. Interest rates on the bonds are reset weekly by the remarketing agents - Barclays Capital Inc.; De La Rosa & Co. Inc.; and Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co. LLC. - with such rates determined, in part, based on the market performance of similar, tax-exempt bonds with similar liquidity support. To support each series of the 2009 Bonds, the Commission executed three SBPAs with JPMorgan for a two-year liquidity facility, which expires on September 29, 2011, at 125 basis points. At staff's request, the Commission's financial advisor, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (Fieldman) contacted JPMorgan regarding its interest in an extension of the liquidity facility and changes in certain terms. JPMorgan and Fieldman have substantially completed negotiations related to an extension for an additional three year period and acceptable changes in certain terms, including a reduction in the cost of the liquidity facility and the possible release of all or a portion of the approximately $14.4 million debt service reserve. Fieldman contacted each of the rating agencies to identify and resolve any concerns regarding the partial release of the debt service reserve, and these discussions are still in process. The release of all or part of the reserve fund allows the Commission to fund the same amount of additional project costs without a separate financing. The effective cost of capital for obtaining the additional reserve amount, considering liquidity fees, reduced investment earnings and estimated costs of the amendments, is approximately 4 percent per year. This compares favorably with the Commission's overall cost of capital. Should the potential release of all or a portion of the debt service reserve result in a potential downgrade of the Commission's underlying long-term debt ratings by any of the rating agencies, the Commission will not include this change in the amendments and will not develop an Offering Memorandum. The extension of the JPMorgan liquidity facility does not increase the amount of debt issued and outstanding and therefore does not affect the Measure A debt limit. In fact, the cost for liquidity under the amended terms is significantly lower than the original cost. In connection with the issuance of the 2009 Bonds by Resolution No. 09-017 adopted in August 2009, the Commission authorized the execution and delivery by the Commission of any agreement that amended and/or extended the terms of any of the financing agreements relating to the 2009 Bonds. Staff, Fieldman, and legal counsel have reviewed the amendments to the SBPAs, including the accompanying Fee Letter, and believe it to be advantageous to the Commission to enter into the amendments to the SBPAs. In accordance with the authority to enter into the extensions provided by Section 11 of Resolution No. 09-017, it is proposed that Agenda Item 9 • • • 179 • • • the Executive Director execute the attached amendments, including the Fee Letter, to the SBPAs on behalf of the Commission. Significant changes to these documents are not anticipated and will be executed pursuant to general counsel and bond counsel reviews. As a result of the potential release of the debt service reserve fund, it has been recently determined that a Fourth Supplemental Indenture and an Offering Memorandum are required and a related resolution approving these two documents. Drafts of these documents are attached to this staff report for approval and consist of the following: • Resolution No. 11-010 (draft) authorizing the release of all or a portion of the debt service reserve fund; the execution and delivery of a Fourth Supplemental Indenture and Offering Memorandum; and the taking of all other actions necessary in connection with this transaction; • Fourth Supplemental Indenture (draft) between the Commission and the trustee (draft) regarding an amendment to the terms and conditions of the 2009 Bonds; and • Offering Memorandum (draft). As part of the action to authorize the release of the debt service reserve fund related to the 2009 Bonds, the Commission will approve the form of the Offering Memorandum and authorize its distribution in connection with the amendment to the terms of the liquidity facility for the 2009 Bonds. The Offering Memorandum is required under state and federal securities laws prohibiting the offer and sale of securities such as the 2009 Bonds, unless all matters that would be material to an investor in the 2009 Bonds have been adequately disclosed and that there is no omission of material facts. Furthermore, under applicable securities laws and regulations, if the reserve fund is reduced or eliminated, the remarketing agents (underwriting firms) cannot continue to market the 2009 Bonds without a revised Offering Memorandum. The Commissioners serving on the Board as the governing body of the issuer of the 2009 Bonds will be expected to read and be familiar with the information described in the draft Offering Memorandum included with the staff report. The Commissioners may employ the services of experts to take the lead in the drafting and review of the Offering Memorandum; however, the Commissioners have the duty to review the information and bring to the attention of those responsible for the preparation of the offering document any misstatements or omissions in the draft and to ask questions if they are unclear about the information or their role. The financing team will be available to respond to the identification of any misstatements or omissions or to such questions. Agenda Item 9 180 The current SBPAs expire on September 29, 2011. Due to the timing provisions relating to mandatory purchase of the 2009 Bonds, it is important for the Commission to be able to complete the extension of the SBPAs and other related amendments before September 1, 2011. As a result of the proposed extension, the transaction costs for the amendments are likely to be considerably less than the costs to enter into a liquidity facility with a new bank under possibly different terms. The estimated costs for this transaction are estimated to not exceed $200,000 and may consist of fees to be paid to the following: • Financial Advisor - Fieldman; • Bond Counsel - Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; • Disclosure Counsel - Fulbright & Jaworski LLP; • General Counsel - Best, Best & Krieger LLP; • Liquidity Provider Counsel - Nixon Peabody; and • Rating Agencies - Moody's, S&P, and Fitch. The FY 2011/12 budget includes amounts for the liquidity facility fees and approximately $120,000 for professional services costs. Should the professional services costs related to this transaction exceed this amount and be less than the $200,000 not to exceed estimate, staff will return to the Commission at mid -year for a potential budget adjustment. Staff recommends approval of the estimated costs of issuance and execution of related professional services agreement amendments, as required. Additionally, staff recommends adoption of Resolution 11-010; approval of the draft Fourth Supplemental Indenture and Offering Memorandum. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13+ Amount: $1,120,100 $2,816,500 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 264-19-65XXX 101-19 65XXX Fiscal Procedures Approved: \iiii,v,iajtai Date: 06/15/11 Attachments: 1) Draft First Amendment Including Fee Letter 2) Resolution 11-010 (draft) 3) Fourth Supplemental Indenture (draft) 4) Offering Memorandum (draft) Agenda Item 9 • • • 181 ATTACHMENT 1 NIXON DRAFT DATED 6/20/11 • FIRST AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT by and between RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION and • • 13447147.4 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Dated as of September 1, 2011 relating to $85,000,000 Riverside County Transportation Commission 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series A 182 NIXON DRAFT DATED 6/20/11 • • FIRST AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT This FIRST AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this "First Amendment"), dated as of September 1, 2011, is by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (including any successors and assigns, the "Commission") and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (including any successors and assigns, the "Bank"). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this First Amendment shall have the respective meanings assigned thereto in the Original Agreement (as defined below). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Commission and the Bank entered into the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2009 (the "Original Agreement"), pursuant to which the Bank agreed to provide liquidity in support of $85,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), 2009 Series A (the "2009 Series A Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Commission and the Bank now desire, among other things, to: (i) extend the Expiration Date; and (ii) make certain additional amendments to the Original Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I INTENTION OF PARTIES, AGREEMENT PROVISIONS The Bank and the Commission have entered into this First Amendment pursuant to Sections 10.7 and 10.10(b) of the Original Agreement to amend their rights and obligations set forth in the Original Agreement. The terms of the Original Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment and the Fee Letter (as so amended, the "Agreement"), shall govern the rights and obligations of the Commission and the Bank in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement. The amendments herein and in the Fee Letter (as defined herein) shall be effective on the First Amendment Effective Date. ARTICLE II AMENDMENTS Section 2.01 Table of Contents and Schedules. (a) The Table of Contents is hereby amended by deleting the heading "Section 2.7 Commitment Fees and Other Fees" and replacing it with "Section 2.7 Fees". 13447147.4 184 (b) The Table of Contents is hereby amended by deleting the reference to "Schedule I" therein. (c) Schedule I of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 2.02 Amendment to Section 1.1. (a) The definition of "Amendment Fee" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. (b) The definition of "Bank Bond Amortization Period" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: " `Bank Bond Amortization Period" means, subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Section 6.2 hereof, the period commencing on the Bank Bond Amortization Start Date and ending on the first to occur of (i) the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Bank Bond Amortization Start Date, (ii) the date on which the related Bank Bond is redeemed, defeased, accelerated or otherwise paid in accordance with its terms, (iii) the date of the remarketing of such Bank Bond, (iv) the date on which such Bank Bond matures in accordance with its terms, (v) the Substitution Date, (vi) the Conversion Date, and (vii) the date on which the Available Commitment has been reduced to zero or terminated in its entirety pursuant to Section 8.4 hereof." (c) The definition of "Base Rate" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: " 'Base Rate' means, for any day, the higher of (a) the Bank's U.S. prime commercial lending rate in effect for such day (as such U.S. prime commercial lending rate is announced from time to time by the Bank at its principal New York office) plus 1.50% per annum, (b) the Federal Funds Rate plus 2.00% per annum and (c) 7.50% per annum. Each change in the Base Rate shall take effect at the time of such change in such U.S. prime commercial lending rate or the Federal Funds Rate, as the case may be. Each determination of the Base Rate by the Bank will be conclusive and binding on the Commission, absent manifest error. (d) The definition of "Commitment Fee" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: " `Commitment Fee' has the meaning assigned to such term in the Fee Letter." (e) The definition of "Expiration Date" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: " `Expiration Date' means the later of (a) 5:00 p.m., New York time, on September 30, 2014 or, if such day is not a Business Day, the Business Day next preceding such day and (b) 5:00 p.m., New York time, on the last day of any 13447147.4 -3- • 185 • • • extension of such date pursuant to Section 10.10(b) hereof or, if such last day is not a Business Day, the Business Day next preceding such day." (f) The definition of "Related Documents" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: " `Related Documents' means this Agreement, the Fee Letter, the 2009 Series A Bonds, the 2009 Series B Bonds, the 2009 Series C Bonds, the Other Liquidity Facilities and the Indenture." (g) The definition of "Termination Fee" in Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. (h) There is hereby added to Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement each of the following definitions, each of which is to be situated alphabetically: " `Cut -Off -Date' has the meaning assigned to such term in Section 2.9(g) hereof." " `Dodd -Frank Act' means the Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, as enacted by the United States Congress, and signed into law on July 21, 2010, and all statutes, rules, guidelines or directives promulgated thereunder." " `Fee Letter' means the letter dated the First Amendment Effective Date from the Bank to the Commission regarding fees and expenses or any amendment thereto or substitute therefore agreed to by the Bank and the Commission." " `First Amendment' means that certain amendment to the Original Agreement, dated the First Amendment Effective Date, by and between the Commission and the Bank." " `First Amendment Effective Date' means September 30, 2011." Section 2.03 Amendment to Section 2.4(d). Section 2.4(d) of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "(d) Subject to satisfaction of the requirements of the Fee Letter, the Commission may terminate this Agreement at any time following no less than five (5) Business Days' prior written notice to the Bank and the Trustee." Section 2.04 Amendment to Section 2.7. Section 2.7 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 13447147.4 "Section 2.7. Fees. (a) The Commission shall pay to the Bank the fees, expenses and other amounts described in the Fee Letter at the times specified in the Fee Letter. -4- 186 (b) Any references to the Commitment Fee, other fees or payments owed to the Bank hereunder without specific reference to the Fee Letter shall be read so as to include the Fee Letter, which is hereby incorporated by reference." Section 2.05 Amendment to Section 2.9. Section 2.9 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following subparagraphs (f) and (g): "(f) Dodd Frank Act; Basel Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this Agreement (i) all requests, rules, guidelines or directives in connection with the Dodd -Frank Act shall be deemed to be a Change of Law under this Section 2.9, regardless of the date enacted, adopted or issued, and (ii) all requests, rules, guidelines or directives promulgated by the Bank for International Settlements, the Basel Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices (or any successor or similar authority) or any Governmental Authority with proper jurisdiction over the Bank shall be deemed to be a Change of Law under this Section 2.9 regardless of the date enacted, adopted or issued. (g) Increased Costs Cut-off Date. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this Section 2.9, the Commission shall have no liability to the Bank for any increased costs to the extent incurred by or imposed on the Bank more than nine months prior to the date the certificate is given to the Commission with respect thereto (the "Cut -Off - Date "), except where (A) the Bank had no actual knowledge of the action resulting in such increased costs as of the Cut -Off -Date or (B) such increased costs apply to the Bank retroactively to a date prior to the Cut -Off -Date." ******************************************** Unless otherwise specifically set forth herein, references hereinafter to the Original Agreement shall be deemed to be references to the Original Agreement as amended hereby and by the Fee Letter, and terms defined in the Original Agreement shall, unless otherwise modified in this First Amendment or the Fee Letter, be used herein as defined therein. ARTICLE III CONDITIONS TO EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS FIRST AMENDMENT This First Amendment shall become effective as of the First Amendment Effective Date; provided that the Bank shall have first received, on or prior to the date hereof, all of the following (which shall be conclusively evidenced by the Bank's execution and delivery of this First Amendment): (a) (i) executed counterparts of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter from the Commission; and (ii) all other legal matters pertaining to the execution and delivery of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter shall be satisfactory to the Bank and the execution and delivery hereof and thereof by the Bank shall constitute conclusive evidence that all such legal matters have been completed to the satisfaction of the Bank; 13447147.4 5 - • • 187 (b) A certificate, dated the First Amendment Effective Date, to the effect that (i) each of the representations and warranties of the Commission contained in Article V of the Original Agreement and herein, is true and correct in all material respects on and as of the date of such certificate as though made on and as of such date (excluding such representations or warranties that, by virtue of the passage of time only, are no longer true and/or accurate); and (ii) on such date, no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing; (c) All fees set forth in the Fee Letter shall be paid in full in the amounts and to the entities required thereby; (d) Executed amendments to the Other Liquidity Facilities; and (e) Such other documents, instruments, approvals (and, if requested by the Bank, certified duplicates of executed copies thereof) or opinions as the Bank may reasonably request of the Commission. In addition, the Commission shall have received all of the following: (i) Counterparts of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter, duly executed by the Bank; and (ii) Such other documents, instruments, approvals (and, if requested by the Commission or the Trustee, certified duplicates of executed copies thereof) or opinions as the Commission or the Trustee may reasonably request of the Bank. In addition, on or prior to the date hereof: (x) there shall not have occurred any material adverse change in the financial condition or operations of the Commission since the date of the most recent financial information provided to the Bank, (y) no change shall have occurred in any law, rule or regulation or in any interpretation thereof that, in the opinion of counsel for the Bank, would make it illegal for the Bank to execute and deliver this First Amendment and the Fee Letter or the Commission to execute and deliver this First Amendment and the Fee Letter, and (z) no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing under the Original Agreement. ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE COMMISSION The Commission hereby represents and warrants as follows: (a) the execution, delivery and performance by the Commission of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter are within its powers, have been duly authorized by all necessary action and do not contravene any law or any contractual restriction binding on or affecting the Commission; 13447147.4 -6- 188 (b) the Commission has performed, and is in compliance with, all agreements and conditions set forth in the Original Agreement and the other Related Documents it is required to satisfy in connection with the execution, delivery and performance of the First Amendment and the Fee Letter on and prior to the First Amendment Effective Date and the Original Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment and the Fee Letter, constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of the Commission and are enforceable against the Commission in accordance with their respective terms except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable reorganization, insolvency, liquidation, readjustment of debt, moratorium or other similar laws affecting the enforcement of the rights of creditors generally and by general principles of equity (regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in a proceeding in equity or at law), the exercise of judicial discretion and the limitations on remedies against transportation commissions in the State; and (c) no further authorization, approval or other action by, and no notice to or filing with, any Governmental Authority with proper jurisdiction over the Commission is required for the due execution, delivery and performance by the Commission of this First Amendment and the Fee Letter, and the Commission has provided, or will cause to have provided, written notice of this First Amendment to the Remarketing Agent, Fitch, Moody's and S&P. ARTICLE V FULL FORCE AND EFFECT The Original Agreement is hereby amended to the extent provided in this First Amendment and the Fee Letter and, except as specifically provided herein, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. ARTICLE VI GOVERNING LAW THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES UNDER THIS FIRST AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10.6 OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. ARTICLE VII HEADINGS Section headings in this First Amendment are included herein for convenience of reference only and shall not have any effect for purposes of interpretation or construction of the terms of this First Amendment. ARTICLE VIII COUNTERPARTS This First Amendment may be signed in any number of counterpart copies, but all such copies shall constitute one and the same instrument. 13447147.4 -7- • • • 189 • • • ARTICLE IX SEVERABILITY In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein should be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not in any way be affected or impaired hereby. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank.] 13447147.4 -8- 190 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this First Amendment to be duly executed and delivered by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date first above written. 13447147.4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Name: Title: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By: Name: Title: S-1 • 191 NIXON DRAFT DATED 6/17/11 • • • J P. Morgan As of September 1, 2011 Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is made to the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2009 (the "Original Agreement"), as amended by the First Amendment to the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, of even date herewith (the "First Amendment", and, the Original Agreement as amended by the First Amendment and this Fee Letter, the "Agreement") between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the "Bank"). Any capitalized term below that is defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning when used herein. This letter is the Fee Letter described in the Agreement. In order to induce the Bank to enter into the First Amendment and to continue to provide liquidity support for the 2009 Series A Bonds pursuant to the Agreement, the Commission agrees to make the following payments at the following times: 13447162.4 (A) Commitment Fee. (1) The Commission hereby agrees to pay to the Bank a commitment fee (the "Commitment Fee") with respect to the commitment of the Bank at a per annum rate (the "Commitment Fee Rate") multiplied by the Available Commitment. The Commission and the Bank agree that as of First Amendment Effective Date the Commitment Fee Rate will be [0.765]%. The Commitment Fee Rate may be adjusted from time to time pursuant to the table below: 192 • 13447162.4 Level Commission Bond Rating* Commitment Fee Rate 1 II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Moody's Fitch/S&P Aal or better AA+ or better [76.5] bppa [76.5] bppa [96.5] bppa Aa2 AA Aa3 AA- Al A2 A3 Baal Baa2 Baa3 Below Baa3 A+ A A - BBB+ BBB BBB - Below BBB - [116.5] bppa [136.5] bppa [156.5] bppa [176.5] bppa [196.5] bppa [216.5] bppa [236.5] bppa (2) Improvements/Downgrades of Commission Bond Rating. If the Commission Bond Ratings assigned by all of the Rating Agencies, or by two of the three Rating Agencies, are at the same level, the Commitment Fee Rate will be based on the level at which all of the Rating Agencies, or two of the three Rating Agencies, if applicable, have assigned their respective Commission Bond Rating(s). For example, if Fitch assigns an "AA" rating, Moody's assigns an "Aa2" rating and S&P assigns an "AA+" rating, the Commitment Fee Rate will be determined in accordance with level II. If the Commission Bond Ratings assigned by each of the Rating Agencies is at a different level, the Commitment Fee Rate will be based on the rating assigned to the level in the middle of the three rating levels. For example, if Fitch assigns an "AA" rating, Moody's assigns an "Aa3" rating and S&P assigns an "AA+" rating, the Commitment Fee Rate will be determined in accordance with level II. However, if Fitch assigns an "AA-" rating, Moody's assigns an "A2" rating and S&P assigns an "AA" rating, the Commitment Fee Rate will be determined in accordance with level Ill. The change in the Commitment Fee Rate will be increased or reduced, as applicable, on such date that the Rating Agency or Rating Agencies in question shall have publicly announced its/their improvement/downgrade of its/their Commission Bond Rating(s) which improvement/downgrade affects the level or levels described above. (3) The Commitment Fee shall be payable in immediately available funds quarterly in arrears commencing on the first Business Day of December, 2011; provided, however, that in connection with the payment due on the first Business Day of 2 193 • • • 13447162.4 December, 2011, the Commitment Fee shall be computed as follows: (X) at a rate equal to 1.25% per annum for the period from and including September 1, 2011 to but not including the First Amendment Effective Date (subject to any adjustments as set forth in Schedule I to the Original Agreement), and (Y) at a rate equal to 0.79% per annum for the period from and including the First Amendment Effective Date through and including November 31, 2011 (subject to any adjustments as set forth hereinabove) and, thereafter, the Commitment Fee shall be computed on the basis set forth in this Fee Letter and Section 2.10(a) of the Agreement and be payable on the first Business Day of each March, June, September and December and upon the last day of the Commitment Period, in all cases, covering the period from the date of the immediately preceding payment to such Business Day. If the Available Commitment is terminated in its entirety, the accrued but unpaid Commitment Fee shall be payable on the effective date of such termination. The Bank's determination of the Commitment Fee pursuant hereto shall be conclusive absent manifest error. (4) In addition to the increases set forth above, if (y) one or more of the Rating Agencies shall withdraw or suspend its/their Commission Bond Rating(s) or reduce its/their Commission Bond Rating(s) below Investment Grade (whether or not such reduction results in a termination or suspension of the Bank's obligations under the Agreement but excluding, however, a withdrawal or suspension of the Commission Bond Rating(s) due to the purchase of 2009 Series A Bonds by the Commission) or (z) a Ratings Event or an Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing under the Agreement (whether or not such Ratings Event or Event of Default results in a termination or suspension of the Bank's obligations under the Agreement), then the Commitment Fee Rate shall increase automatically and immediately by 100 basis points per annum above the Commitment Fee Rate in effect immediately prior to such withdrawal, suspension, reduction, Ratings Event or Event of Default, and shall remain in effect for so long as such withdrawal, suspension or reduction remains in effect or, in the case of an Event of Default, for so long as said Event of Default has not been waived or cured to the Bank's satisfaction. (5) The Commitment Fee Rate will be increased or reduced on such date that the Rating Agency or Rating Agencies in question shall have publicly announced (i) a suspension, withdrawal or reduction of its/their Commission Bond Rating(s) as described in the immediately preceding paragraph or (ii) the reinstatement of its/their Commission Bond Rating(s) to that level which was applicable thereto prior to such suspension, withdrawal or reduction of its/their Commission Bond Rating(s). In the case of an Event of Default, the increase in the Commitment Fee Rate as a result thereof will remain in effect for so long as said Event of Default has not been waived or cured. (B) Amendment/Transfer Fee. 3 194 (l) On or before the First Amendment Effective Date, the Commission shall pay the fees and expenses of Nixon Peabody LLP, counsel to the Bank, in an amount not to exceed $ ; and (2) In connection with the written request by the Commission or the Trustee for (i) any amendment, supplement, waiver, consent or other modification of the Agreement, the Indenture or any other Related Document requiring any action on the part of the Bank, or (ii) any transfer of the rights and obligations under the Agreement by the Commission or the Trustee, the Commission shall pay or cause to be paid to the Bank a fee of $5,000 (the "Amendment Fee"), plus reasonable fees and expenses of counsel to the Bank, for each amendment, supplement, waiver, consent or other modification hereof; provided however, an amendment of the Agreement at the request of the Bank or that entails nothing more than an extension of the term or adjustment to the Commitment Fee shall not require the payment of the Amendment Fee. Said Amendment Fees will be payable as set forth in paragraph (E) hereof. (C) Purchase Fee. The Commission shall pay to the Bank a purchase fee (the "Purchase Fee") in an amount equal to $500 for each purchase of 2009 Series A Bonds by the Bank, which amount shall be payable as set forth in paragraph (E) hereof. (D) Termination Fee. In the event the Commission replaces or terminates the Agreement prior to the Expiration Date, then the Commission shall pay to the Bank, in addition to all other Obligations that may be due and payable at such time, a termination fee equal to the Commitment Fee for the Commitment Period, less any Commitment Fees paid during such period pursuant to paragraph (A) hereof (the "Termination Fee"). Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph (D), no Termination Fee will be required to be paid by the Commission if (i) the 2009 Series A Bonds are then rated by Moody's, Moody's shall have lowered or withdrawn the short-term rating on the 2009 Series A Bonds below "P -1," as a result of the reduction by Moody's of the senior, unsecured short-term rating of the Bank; or (ii) the 2009 Series A Bonds are then rated by Standard & Poor's, Standard & Poor's shall have lowered or withdrawn the short-term rating on the 2009 Series A Bonds below "A-1," as a result of the reduction by Standard Poor's of the senior, unsecured short-term rating of the Bank; or (iii) the 2009 Series A Bonds are then rated by Fitch, Fitch shall have lowered or withdrawn the short- term rating on the 2009 Series A Bonds below "F -1," as a result of the reduction by Fitch of the senior, unsecured short-term rating of the Bank; or (iv) the Bank seeks to impose a fee increase pursuant to Section 2.9 of the Agreement; or (v) the Commission elects to prepay, defease, refinance or refund the 2009 Series A Bonds in full from a source of funds which does not involve the issuance by a bank or other financial institution of a letter of credit, liquidity facility, or credit facility or does not involve a bank direct purchase; provided, however, all Obligations including, without limitation, all principal and interest evidenced by Bank Bonds and all amounts payable under the Agreement and hereunder, shall be paid to the Bank at or prior to the time of termination. Payment of the Termination Fee will be subject to compliance with the provisions of paragraph (E) hereof. In addition, the Commission shall comply with the requirements of the Indenture with respect to terminating the Agreement. 134471624 4 • • • 195 • • • (E) Fees and Payments. The Commission hereby agrees to pay (i) Commitment Fees and Amendments Fees to the Bank on or before thirty (30) days following the delivery by the Bank to the Commission and the Trustee of an invoice for such amount, and (ii) the Purchase Fees within five (5) Business Days upon delivery by the Bank to the Commission and the Trustee of an invoice for such amount (collectively, the "Fee Payment Due Date"); provided that any Termination Fee payable by the Commission to the Bank shall be payable on or prior to the date of termination regardless of the date of delivery of the invoice therefor. Any fee not paid by the Commission by the third (3rd) Business Days next following the Fee Payment Due Date shall bear interest at the Default Rate from such third (3rd) Business Day until the day such fee is received by the Bank. Failure by the Bank to deliver any such invoice shall not modify the liability of the Commission for any such fees; provided that such fees shall not become due and payable and interest shall not accrue thereon except as set forth in the preceding sentence. All amounts paid pursuant to this Fee Letter shall be non-refundable. The obligation of the Commission to pay the Commitment Fee and all other amounts set forth herein and in the Agreement as fees (including, but not limited to, the fees herein and the fees described in Sections 2.9 and 10.3 of the Agreement) shall be payable from the Fee and Expense Fund of the Revenue Fund, pursuant to Section 5.02(A)(5) of the Indenture, if and to the extent that such amounts are not paid by the Commission from other moneys. Interest, fees and other amounts payable to the Bank under the Agreement and this Fee Letter shall be computed on the basis of a 365 -day year and actual days elapsed; provided, however, computations of the Commitment Fee and the Termination Fee shall be made on the basis of a 360 -day year and actual days elapsed. All amounts paid pursuant to this Fee Letter shall be paid in the manner set forth in the Agreement. This Fee Letter may not be amended or waived except by an instrument in writing signed by the Bank and the Commission. This Fee Letter may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Fee Letter by electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. This Fee Letter is delivered to the Commission on the understanding that, except as customarily submitted to Commission members or as required by law, regulation or a court of competent jurisdiction or in connection with a dispute, including but not limited to legal proceedings, between the Commission and the Bank, the Commission will use its best efforts, without liability, to ensure that neither this Fee Letter nor any of its terms shall be disclosed directly by the Commission to any other financial institution nor posted to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's Electronic Municipal Market Access system. The Bank acknowledges that this Fee Letter is subject to open records requests received by the Commission and will be submitted to Commission members and discussed in open meetings as is customary practice and procedure for the Commission. Should this Fee Letter be disclosed pursuant to such a request or procedures, the Commission shall have no responsibility or liability for the further dissemination of this Fee Letter or any of the information contained therein to other persons. 13447162.4 5 196 • [Remainder of page intentionally left blank.) 13447162 4 6 197 • • • Please confirm that the foregoing is our mutual understanding by signing and returning to the Bank an executed counterpart of this Fee Letter. This Fee Letter shall become effective as of the date first above referenced upon our receipt of an executed counterpart of this Fee Letter from the Commission. Very truly yours, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By: Accepted and agreed to as of the date first written above by: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Name: Title: 13447162.4 Name: Title: 7 198 ATTACHMENT 2 • • • NO. 11-010 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF ALL OR A PORTION OF THE DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS (LIMITED TAX BONDS), 2009 SERIES A, 2009 SERIES B, AND 2009 SERIES C, THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, AN OFFERING MEMORANDUM, AND THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") is a county transportation commission duly organized and existing pursuant to the County Transportation Commissions Act, being Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California (Section 130000 et seq.); WHEREAS, the Commission is authorized pursuant to the Riverside County Transportation Sales Tax Act, being Division 25 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California (Section 240000 et seq.) (the "Act"), to, among other things, and with voter approval, levy a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (the "Sales Tax Law") and to issue limited tax bonds payable from the proceeds of such tax; WHEREAS, the Commission adopted Ordinance No. 02-001, named the "Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance" (the "Ordinance") on May 8, 2002, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, which Ordinance provides for the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax (the "Sales Tax") applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County in accordance with the provisions of the Sales Tax Law at the rate of one-half of one percent (1/2%) commencing July 1, 2009 and continuing for a period not to exceed thirty (30) years; WHEREAS, the Commission is authorized by Section 240309 of the California Public Utilities Code to issue from time to time limited tax bonds (defined to include indebtedness and securities of any kind or class, including sales tax revenue bonds), secured and payable in whole or in part from revenues of the Sales Tax ("Sales Tax Revenues"); WHEREAS, the Commission has heretofore issued its Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), 2009 Series A, 2009 Series B and 2009 Series C (collectively, the "Series 2009 Bonds") in the aggregate principal amount of $185,000,000 pursuant to an Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2008 (the "Master Indenture"), as amended and supplemented, including by a First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2008 (the "First Supplemental Indenture") and a Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 1, 2009 (the "Second Supplemental Indenture"), each by and between the Commission and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), which Series 2009 Bonds are currently outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $174,700,000; OHS WEST:261187605.2 199 WHEREAS, the Commission has heretofore issued its Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), 2010 Series A and 2010 Series B (collectively, the "Series 2010 Bonds") in the aggregate principal amount of $150,000,000 pursuant to the Master Indenture, as amended and supplemented, including as amended and supplemented by a Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2010 (the "Third Supplemental Indenture" and, together with the Master Indenture, the First Supplemental Indenture and the Second Supplemental Indenture, the "Indenture"), by and between the Commission and the Trustee, which Series 2010 Bonds are currently outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $150,000,000; WHEREAS, the Series 2009 Bonds currently bear interest at a Weekly Rate (as defined in the Indenture) and the Commission has heretofore entered into three Standby Bond Purchase Agreements, each dated as of October 1, 2009 (collectively, the "Standby Agreements"), with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), each of which provides liquidity support for a respective series of Series 2009 Bonds; WHEREAS, pursuant to the authorization in the Commission's Resolution No. 09-017, the Standby Agreements will be amended in order to extend the respective expiration dates of each Standby Agreement and to make certain other changes to the terms thereof (collectively, the "Amendment"); WHEREAS, the Commission finds and determines that amending the Indenture in order to eliminate or reduce reserve requirements with respect to the Series 2009 Bonds could be beneficial to the Commission by providing more funds to carry out the purposes of the Ordinance, if the same can be accomplished without adversely affecting the Commission's credit ratings; WHEREAS, there has been prepared and presented to the Commission a proposed form of Fourth Supplemental Indenture (the "Fourth Supplemental Indenture") which amends the Indenture to eliminate reserve requirements with respect to the Series 2009 Bonds; WHEREAS, in order to provide information to purchasers and potential purchasers of the Series 2009 Bonds concerning the Series 2009 Bonds subsequent to the Amendment and the effectiveness of the Fourth Supplemental Indenture, the Commission proposes to execute and deliver a Remarketing Memorandum (the "Offering Memorandum"); WHEREAS, there has been prepared and presented to the Commission a proposed form of Offering Memorandum; WHEREAS, the Commission has examined and approved each document presented to it and desires to authorize and direct the execution of such documents as are specified herein; and WHEREAS, the Commission is now duly authorized and empowered, pursuant to each and every requirement of law, to authorize the execution of the Fourth Supplemental Indenture and the Offering Memorandum for the purposes, in the manner and upon the terms provided; NOW THEREFORE, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLVES: OHS WEST261187605.2 -2- • • • 200 • • Section 1. The Commission finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. The proposed form of Fourth Supplemental Indenture presented to this meeting and the terms and conditions thereof are hereby approved. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Commission, to execute and deliver the Fourth Supplemental Indenture if the Executive Director, with the advice of the Financial Advisor, determines that doing so is in the best interest of the Commission on the date of execution, in substantially said form, with such changes therein, including reducing rather than eliminating reserve requirements relating to the Series 2009 Bonds, as the officer executing the same may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. Section 3. The proposed form of Offering Memorandum presented to this meeting is hereby approved. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Commission, to execute and deliver the Offering Memorandum, in substantially said form, with such changes therein as the officer executing the same may require or approve, including changes reflecting a reduction, rather than an elimination of, the reserve requirements relating to the Series 2009 Bonds, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. The remarketing agents for the Series 2009 Bonds are hereby authorized to distribute the Offering Memorandum in the form so executed by the Executive Director, if the Executive Director determines such distribution is appropriate for the remarketing of the Series 2009 Bonds. Section 4. All approvals, consents, directions, notices, orders, requests and other actions permitted or required by any of the documents authorized by this Resolution, the Indenture or the Standby Agreements, including, without limitation, any amendment of any of such documents or execution of other agreements related thereto, and any of the foregoing that may be necessary or desirable in connection with any reserve provisions, any investment of proceeds of the Series 2009 Bonds, or in connection with the addition, amendment or replacement of liquidity facilities for the Series 2009 Bonds, or any agreements with paying agents, the removal or replacement of the Trustee or any remarketing agents or any similar action may be given or taken by an Authorized Representative (as such term is defined in the Indenture), without further authorization or direction by the Commission, and each Authorized Representative is hereby authorized and directed to give any such approval, consent, direction, notice, order, request, or other action and to execute such documents and take any such action which such Authorized Representative may deem necessary or desirable to further the purposes of this Resolution. Section 5. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the Commission with respect to the Series 2009 Bonds and the Standby Agreements are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. If at the time of execution of any of the documents authorized herein, the Executive Director is unavailable, such documents may be executed by the Deputy Executive Director of the Commission or the Chief Financial Officer in lieu of the Executive Director. The Clerk of the Board is hereby authorized to attest to the execution by the Executive Director or the Deputy Executive Director or the Chief Financial Officer of any of such documents as said officers deem appropriate. OHS W EST:261187605.2 -3- 201 The officers and agents of the Commission are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, for and in the name and on behalf of the Commission, to do any and all things and to take any and all actions and to execute and deliver any and all agreements, certificates and documents, including, without limitation, signature certificates, certificates concerning the contents of an official statement, an amendment or supplement to an official statement or other disclosure document, any agreements for depository or verification services, and any agreements for rebate compliance services, which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of the Ordinance, this Resolution, and the documents approved hereby. OHS WEST:261187605.2 -4- • • • 202 • • • Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its meeting on July 13, 2011. ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board of the Commission OHS WEST261 1 8 7605.2 -5- By: Chair, Board of Commissioners 203 CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I, Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission"), hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the governing board of said Commission duly and regularly held in Riverside, California, on July 13, 2011, of which meeting all of the members of said Commission had due notice. I further certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing copy with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office; that said copy is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes; and that said resolution has not been amended, modified, rescinded or revoked in any manner since the date of its adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect. I further certify that an agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at a location in Riverside, California, freely accessible to the public and a brief general description of the resolution to be adopted at said meeting appeared on said agenda. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate hereto as of this date, ,2011. OHS WEST261187605.2 By Clerk -6- • • • 204 ATTACHMENT 3 • FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE between RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee • Dated as of September 1, 2011 Relating to RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS (LIMITED TAX BONDS) (Supplementing the Indenture Dated as of June 1, 2008) • OHS WEST:261192395.3 • 206 • ARTICLE XXXII DEFINITIONS • Section 32.01. Definitions Section 32.02. Rules of Construction 2 3 ARTICLE XXXIII ESTABLISHMENT OF 2009 EXCESS RESERVE PROCEEDS PROJECT FUND Section 33.01. 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund 3 ARTICLE XXXIV TRANSFER OF AMOUNTS HELD IN 2009 BOND RESERVE FUND Section 34.01. Transfer to 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund 4 ARTICLE XXXV MISCELLANEOUS 4 Section 35.01. Severability 4 Section 35.02. Parties Interested Herein 5 Section 35.03. Headings Not Binding 5 Section 35.04. Indenture to Remain in Effect 5 Section 35.05. Effective Date of Fourth Supplemental Indenture 5 Section 35.06. Execution in Counterparts 5 OHS WEST:2611923951 207 • 208 • • • FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE THIS FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, dated as of September 1, 2011 (this "Fourth Supplemental Indenture"), between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity duly established and existing under the laws of the State of California (the "Commission") and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States of America, as trustee (the "Trustee"): WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, this Fourth Supplemental Indenture is supplemental to the Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2008 (as supplemented and amended from time to time pursuant to its terms, the "Indenture"), between the Commission and the Trustee; WHEREAS, the Indenture provides that the Commission may issue Bonds from time to time as authorized by a Supplemental Indenture, which Bonds are to be payable from Revenues and from such other sources as may be specified with respect to a particular Series of Bonds in the Supplemental Indenture authorizing such Series; WHEREAS, the Commission has heretofore issued its Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), 2009 Series A, 2009 Series B and 2009 Series C (collectively, the "2009 Bonds"), in the aggregate principal amount of $185,000,000, secured by the pledge of Revenues and other monies as set forth in the Indenture and its Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), 2010 Series A (Tax -Exempt) and 2010 Series B (Taxable Build America Bonds) (collectively, the "2010 Bonds"); WHEREAS, the Commission entered into three Standby Bond Purchase Agreements, each dated as of October 1, 2009 (each a "2009 Liquidity Facility"), with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the "2009 Liquidity Facility Provider"), relating to the respective Series of 2009 Bonds; WHEREAS, the Commission entered into an interest rate swap agreement with Bank of America, N.A., ("BofA") pursuant to an ISDA Master Agreement, dated as of August 22, 2006, as supplemented by the Schedule, dated as of August 22, 2006 and the confirmation of a transaction entered into on August 22, 2006, each by and between BofA and the Commission (the `BofA Swap Agreement"); WHEREAS, the Commission entered into an interest rate swap agreement with Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch, ("DBAG" and, together with BofA, the "2009 Swap Providers") pursuant to an ISDA Master Agreement, dated as of September 24, 2008, as supplemented by the Schedule, dated as of September 24, 2008 and the confirmation of a transaction entered into on September 24, 2008, each by and between DBAG and the Commission (the "DBAG Swap Agreement" and, together with the BofA Swap, the "2009 Swaps"); WHEREAS, the Commission has designated the 2009 Swaps as Interest Rate Swap Agreements (as defined in the Indenture) in connection with the 2009 Bonds; OHS WEST:261192395.3 209 WHEREAS, upon issuance of the 2009 Bonds, a 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund was established pursuant to the Indenture and available solely to make payments relating to the 2009 Bonds and a portion of the proceeds of the 2009 Bonds, in an amount equal to the 2009 Bonds Reserve Requirement, was deposited therein by the Trustee; WHEREAS, the Commission hereby determines that amending the Indenture in order to reduce the 2009 Bonds Reserve Requirement to zero (the "Reserve Amendment") will be beneficial to the Commission by providing the Commission with additional funds to carry out the purposes of the Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Commission hereby determines that, pursuant to Section 9.01(B)(13) of the Indenture, the Commission and the Trustee are authorized to modify and amend the Indenture by this Fourth Supplemental Indenture, to become effective on September 30, 2011, which is at least thirty (30) days following the date on which notice of the Reserve Amendment was given to Holders of the 2009 Bonds, which are the only Bonds affected by the Reserve Amendment and during which time such Holders had the right to demand purchase of their 2009 Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Indenture; WHEREAS, the Commission hereby further determines that, as the 2009 Reserve Fund was only available to make payments relating to the 2009 Bonds, the 2010 Bonds are not affected by the Reserve Amendment and that the provisions of the Indenture to be amended and supplemented by the Reserve Amendment are not part of the Incorporated Provisions for the 2009 Swaps and do not materially and adversely affect the 2009 Swap Providers; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.2(b) of each of the respective 2009 Liquidity Facilities, the Commission has secured the consent of the 2009 Liquidity Facility Provider to the Reserve Amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE XXXII DEFINITIONS Section 32.01. Definitions. (a) Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, or as otherwise provided in subsection (b) and (c) of this Section, all terms which are defined in Section 1.02, Section 19.01 and Section 26.01 of the Indenture shall have the same meanings in this Fourth Supplemental Indenture. (b) Additional Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall, for all purposes of this Fourth Supplemental Indenture, have the following meanings: "Effective Date" means September 30, 2011. "2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund" means the fund by that name established pursuant to Section 33.01(a). OHS WEST:2611923953 2 • • • 210 • • • (c) Amended Definitions. Pursuant to Section 9.01(B)(13) of the Indenture, for all purposes of the Indenture and of any Supplemental Indenture, including this Fourth Supplemental Indenture, and of any certificate, opinion or other document therein mentioned, the provisions of the Indenture are hereby amended and supplemented as follows: "2009 Bonds Reserve Requirement" means an amount equal to $0. Section 32.02. Rules of Construction. Words of the masculine gender shall be deemed and construed to include correlative words of the feminine and neuter genders. Unless the context shall otherwise indicate, words importing the singular number shall include the plural number and vice versa, and words importing persons shall include corporations and associations, including public bodies, as well as natural persons. Defined terms shall include any variant of the terms set forth in this Article XXXII. The terms "hereby," "hereof," "hereto," "herein," "hereunder," and any similar terms, as used in this Fourth Supplemental Indenture, refer to the Indenture. ARTICLE XXXII' ESTABLISHMENT OF 2009 EXCESS RESERVE PROCEEDS PROJECT FUND Section 33.01. 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund. (a) To ensure the proper application of proceeds of the 2009 Bonds held on the Effective Date in the 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund in excess of the 2009 Bonds Reserve Requirement, which are to be applied to pay a portion of the Costs of the Project, there is hereby established the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund, such fund to be held by the Trustee. (b) The monies set aside and placed in the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund shall be expended for the purpose of paying a portion of the Costs of the Project and shall not be used for any other purpose whatsoever. Pursuant to Section 5.11 of the Indenture, all interest, profits and other income received from the investment of moneys in the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund shall be deposited in the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund. (c) Before any payment from the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund shall be made by the Trustee, the Commission shall file or cause to be filed with the Trustee a requisition of the Commission (each a "Requisition"), such Requisition to be signed by an Authorized Representative and to include: (i) the item number of such payment; (ii) the name and address of the person to whom each such payment is due, which may be the Commission in the case of reimbursement for costs theretofore paid by the Commission; (iii) the respective amounts to be paid; (iv) the purpose by general classification for which each obligation to be paid was incurred; (v) that obligations in the stated amounts have been incurred by the Commission and are presently due and payable and that each item thereof is a proper charge against the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund and has not been previously paid from said fund; and (vi) that there has not been filed with or served upon the Commission notice of any lien, right to lien or attachment upon, or claim affecting the right to receive payment of, any of the amounts payable to any of the persons named in such Requisition, which has not been OHS WEST:261192395.3 3 211 released or will not be released simultaneously with the payment of such obligation, other than materialmen's or mechanics' liens accruing by mere operation of law. (d) When the Commission determines that the portion of the Project funded with amounts held in the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund has been completed, a Certificate of the Commission shall be delivered to the Trustee by the Commission stating: (i) the fact and date of such completion; (ii) that all of the costs thereof have been determined and paid (or that all of such costs have been paid less specified claims that are subject to dispute and for which a retention in the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund is to be maintained in the full amount of such claims until such dispute is resolved); and (iii) that the Trustee is to transfer the remaining balance in the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund relating to the 2009 Bonds, less the amount of any such retention, to the Revenue Fund. ARTICLE XXXIV TRANSFER OF AMOUNTS HELD IN 2009 BOND RESERVE FUND Section 34.01. Transfer to 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund. Notwithstanding any provision of the Indenture to the contrary, including Section 24.03 thereof, on the Effective Date the Trustee shall transfer [$ from / all of the] amounts currently held in the 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund to the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund. Subject to the provisions of Section 33.01 of the Indenture, amounts transferred to the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund shall be applied to finance, refinance, and/or reimburse the Commission for its prior payment of, the Costs of the Project. ARTICLE XXXV MISCELLANEOUS Section 35.01. Severability. If any covenant, agreement or provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Fourth Supplemental Indenture, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Fourth Supplemental Indenture, and the application of any such covenant, agreement or provision, or portion thereof, to other Persons or circumstances, shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected thereby, and this Fourth Supplemental Indenture and the Bonds issued pursuant to the Indenture shall remain valid, and the Holders of the Bonds shall retain all valid rights and benefits accorded to them under this Indenture, the Act, and the Constitution and statutes of the State. Section 35.02. Parties Interested Herein. Nothing in this Fourth Supplemental Indenture expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon, or to give to, any person or entity, other than the Commission, the Trustee and the Holders of the Bonds, any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Fourth Supplemental Indenture or any covenant, condition or stipulation hereof; and all the covenants, stipulations, promises and agreements in this Fourth Supplemental Indenture contained by and on behalf of the Commission shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Commission, the Trustee and the Holders of the Bonds. OHS WEST261192395.3 4 • • • 212 • • Section 35.03. Headings Not Binding. The headings in this Fourth Supplemental Indenture are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or sections of this Fourth Supplemental Indenture. Section 35.04. Indenture to Remain in Effect. Save and except as amended and supplemented by this Fourth Supplemental Indenture, the Indenture shall remain in full force and effect. Section 35.05. Effective Date of Fourth Supplemental Indenture. This Fourth Supplemental Indenture shall take effect upon the Effective Date. Section 35.06. Execution in Counterparts. This Fourth Supplemental Indenture may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. OHS WEST:2611923953 5 213 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fourth Supplemental Indenture by their officers thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (Seal) ATTEST: Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: General Counsel OHS WEST:261192395.3 By: Executive Director U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee By: Authorized Officer S-1 • • • 214 ATTACHMENT 4 Fulbright & Jaworski LLP — Draft 6/29/11— Second • • • REMARKETED ISSUE —BOOK -ENTRY ONLY [DAC Logo' $174,700,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series $80,300,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series A CUSIP No. 769125 DP7 $61,360,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series B CUS1P No. 769125 DR3 RATINGS: Moody's: "Aa1NMIG-1" S&P: "AA+/A-1+" Fitch: "AA/F-1+" See "RATINGS" herein $33,040,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series C CUSIP No. 769125 DT9 Dated: October 1, 2009 Price: 100% Due: June 1, 2029 The Sales Tax Revenue Bonds described above (individually referred to as the "2009 Series A Bonds," the "2009 Series B Bonds" and the "2009 Series C Bonds," and collectively referred to herein as the "2009 Bonds") were issued and delivered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to an Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2008, between the Commission and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), as supplemented (collectively, the `Indenture"). The 2009 Bonds are dated October 1, 2009 and bear interest at a Weekly Rate during a Weekly Rate Period. Interest on the 2009 Bonds during a Weekly Rate Period is payable on the first Business Day of each calendar month. The 2009 Bonds were issued as fully registered bonds without coupons in the denominations of $100,000 and any integral multiple of $5,000 in excess thereof The 2009 Bonds are registered in the name of Cede & Co., as holder of the 2009 Bonds and nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"). The principal or redemption price of and interest on the 2009 Bonds are payable by wire transfer to DTC which, in turn, is obligated to remit such principal, redemption price or interest to DTC Participants for subsequent disbursement to the Beneficial Owners of the 2009 Bonds. This Remarketing Memorandum describes terms of the 2009 Bonds only during a Weekly Rate Period. There are significant differences in the terms of the 2009 Bonds bearing interest using other Interest Rate Determination Methods. This Remarketing Memorandum is not intended to provide information with respect to the 2009 Bonds bearing interest at a Rate other than a Weekly Rate. The 2009 Bonds are subject to optional and mandatory sinking fund redemption and to optional and mandatory tender for purchase as described herein. See "THE 2009 BONDS" herein. Payment of the purchase price of tendered 2009 Bonds is payable from the proceeds of remarketing of the 2009 Bonds and, to the extent remarketing proceeds are insufficient, from amounts available under separate Standby Bond Purchase Agreements, each dated as of October 1, 2009, as amended on September 1, 2011 (each, a "Liquidity Facility" and, together, the "Liquidity Facilities"), each by and between the Commission and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the "Liquidity Provider"), relating to each Series of 2009 Bonds and thereafter from such Alternate Liquidity Facility as may be obtained by the Commission to provide for payment of the purchase price of the 2009 Bonds. Each Liquidity Facility terminates on September 30, 2014, unless extended or terminated sooner in accordance with its terms. Under certain circumstances as described herein, the initial Liquidity Facilities may expire immediately without notice. [Bank logo] The 2009 Bonds are special obligations of the Commission payable from and secured solely by a pledge of the Revenues (which is defined herein and which principally includes the receipts from the imposition in the County of Riverside, California (the "County") of a'/2 -cent sales tax that became effective on July I, 2009 (the "Sales Tax"), less certain administrative fees paid to the California State Board of Equalization), as described herein. The Sales Tax was approved by more than a two-thirds vote of the electorate of the County on November 5, 2002 and is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2039. NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR PUBLIC AGENCY THEREOF, OTHER THAN THAT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT OF THE PLEDGE OF THE REVENUES, IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF, PURCHASE PRICE, OR INTEREST ON THE 2009 BONDS. 50429258.5 215 Upon issuance of the 2009 Bonds, a 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund was established pursuant to the Second Supplemental Indenture for the 2009 Bonds in the amount of $14,213,201, representing the then effective 2009 Bonds Reserve Requirement. Pursuant to the Fourth Supplemental Indenture, and with the consent of the Liquidity Provider, effective on September 30, 2011 the Commission is reducing the 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund Requirement to [$0]. See "SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE 2009 BONDS — No Reserve Fund" herein. This cover page contains certain information for general reference only. It is not a summary of the security or terms of this issue. Investors must read the entire Remarketing Memorandum to obtain information essential to make an informed investment decision with respect to the 2009 Bonds. On the date of original issuance and delivery of the 2009 Bonds, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP rendered its opinion that based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, interest on the 2009 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. The opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP has not been updated as of the date of this Remarketing Memorandum. A copy of the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutclye LLP delivered in connection with the original issuance of the 2009 Bonds is attached hereto as Appendix E. Orrick, Herrington & Sutclje LLP is currently serving as Bond Counsel to the Commission. Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. is currently serving as Disclosure Counsel to the Commission. Barclays Capital Remarketing Agent for the 2009 Series A Bonds De La Rosa & Co. Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC Remarketing Agent for the 2009 Series B Bonds Dated: July , 2011 Remarketing Agent for the 2009 Series C Bonds 50429258.5 216 No dealer, salesman or any other person has been authorized by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") or the Remarketing Agents of the 2009 Bonds (the "Remarketing Agents") to give any information or to make any representations, other than those contained in this Remarketing Memorandum, and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the Commission or the Remarketing Agents. This Remarketing Memorandum does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of the 2009 Bonds by a person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make such an offer, solicitation or sale. This Remarketing Memorandum is not to be construed as a contract with the purchasers of the 2009 Bonds. Neither the delivery of this Remarketing Memorandum nor the sale of any of the 2009 Bonds implies that the information herein is correct as of any time subsequent to the date hereof. The information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to change without notice, and neither the delivery of this Remarketing Memorandum nor any sale made hereunder shall, under any circumstances, create the implication that there has been no change in the matters described herein since the date hereof. This Remarketing Memorandum is submitted in connection with the sale of securities referred to herein and may not be reproduced or be used, as a whole or in part, for any other purpose. The information set forth herein has been obtained from the Commission and other sources believed to be reliable. The information and expressions of opinions herein are subject to change without notice and neither delivery of the Remarketing Memorandum nor any sale made hereunder shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Commission since the date hereof. All summaries contained herein of the Indenture (as defined herein) or other documents are made subject to the provisions of such documents and do not purport to be complete statements of any or all of such provisions. All statements made herein are made as of the date of this document by the Commission except statistical information or other statements where some other date is indicated in the text. CUSIP is a registered trademark of the American Bankers Association. CUSIP data on the cover hereof and herein is provided by CUSIP Global Services, managed by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC on behalf of The American Bankers Association. This data is not intended to create a database and does not serve in any way as a substitute for the CUSIP Services. The Commission, the Financial Advisor and the Remarketing Agents are not responsible for the selection or correctness of the CUSIP numbers set forth on the cover hereof or herein. 50429258.5 217 FORWARD -LOOKING STATEMENTS Certain statements included or incorporated by reference in this Remarketing Memorandum constitute forward -looking statements. Such statements are generally identifiable by the terminology used such as "plan," "expect," "estimate," "project," "budget" or other similar words. The achievement of certain results or other expectations contained in such forward -looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual results, performance or achievements described to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward -looking statements. No assurance is given that actual results will meet the forecasts of the Commission in any way, regardless of the level of optimism communicated in the information. The Commission is not obligated to issue any updates or revisions to the forward- looking statements if or when its expectations, or events, conditions or circumstances on which such statements are based occur. THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CERTAIN RESULTS OR OTHER EXPECTATIONS CONTAINED IN SUCH FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS INVOLVE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN RISKS, UNCERTAINTIES AND OTHER FACTORS WHICH MAY CAUSE ACTUAL RESULTS, PERFORMANCE OR ACHIEVEMENTS DESCRIBED TO BE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM ANY FUTURE RESULTS, PERFORMANCE OR ACHIEVEMENTS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY SUCH FORWARD -LOOKING STATEMENTS. THE COMMISSION DOES NOT PLAN TO ISSUE ANY UPDATES OR REVISIONS TO THOSE FORWARD -LOOKING STATEMENTS IF OR WHEN ANY OF ITS EXPECTATIONS, OR EVENTS, CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ON WHICH SUCH STATEMENTS ARE BASED DO OR DO NOT OCCUR. 50429258.5 • • • 218 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BOARD MEMBERS Greg Pettis, Chair John J. Benoit, 1st Vice Chair Karen Spiegel, 2nd Vice Chair Marion Ashley Terry Henderson Bob Buster Bob Magee Jeff Stone Darcy Kuenzi John F. Tavaglione Marcelo Co Bob Botts Rick Gibbs Roger Berg Berwin Hanna Joseph DeConinck Jan Harnik Ella Zanowic Steve Pougnet Mary Craton Daryl Busch Steven Hernandez Scott Hines Scott Matas Steve Adams Adam Rush Scott Miller Larry Smith Ron Roberts Douglas Hanson Ben Benoit Glenn Miller Raymond Wolfe [Jurupa Valley addition] MANAGEMENT Executive Director Anne Mayer Deputy Executive Director John Standiford Chief Financial Officer Theresia Trevino SPECIAL SERVICES Financial Advisor Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates Irvine, California Bond Counsel Disclosure Counsel Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP San Francisco, California 50429258.5 Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. Los Angeles, California Trustee U.S. Bank National Association Los Angeles, California 219 • • • 220 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION l General 1 Authority for Issuance 1 Purpose and Application of Original Proceeds 2 The 2009 Bonds 2 Security for the 2009 Bonds 3 Liquidity Facilities 3 [No Reserve Fund 3 Existing Swaps 4 Continuing Disclosure 4 Remarketing Agents 4 References 4 THE 2009 BONDS 5 General 5 Weekly Rate 5 Conversion of Interest Rate 6 Redemption 8 Purchase In Lieu of Redemption 9 General Redemption Provisions 9 Tender Provisions 10 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE 2009 BONDS SUBJECT TO OPTIONAL TENDER AND REMARKETING 14 The Remarketing Agents are Paid by the Commission 14 The Remarketing Agents Routinely Purchase 2009 Bonds for their Own Account 14 2009 Bonds May Be Offered at Different Prices on Any Date Including a Rate Determination Date 15 The Ability to Sell the 2009 Bonds Other Than through Tender Process May Be Limited 15 No Remarketing Agent Successor in Certain Circumstances 15 DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE 16 SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE 2009 BONDS 17 Limited Obligation 17 Pledge of Revenues 17 Revenue Fund; Allocation of Revenues 18 [No Reserve Fund 21 Additional Bonds and Parity Obligations 21 OTHER SALES TAX OBLIGATIONS 23 2010 Bonds 23 Existing Swap Agreements 23 50429258.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Subordinate Obligations 24 Limitation on Outstanding Sales Tax Obligations 25 THE LIQUIDITY FACILITIES 25 General 25 Ratings Event 26 Special Events of Default 27 Suspension Events 28 Events of Default Not Constituting a Suspension Event or a Special Event of Default 30 Remedies 30 THE LIQUIDITY PROVIDER 34 THE SALES TAX 35 General 35 Collection of Sales Tax Revenues 36 Historical Sales Tax Revenues 36 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 38 General 38 The Transportation Expenditure Plan 38 Toll Road Bonds 39 Commissioners 39 Executive Staff 40 RISK FACTORS 40 Economic Recession and Financial Crisis 40 Investments 41 Limitations of the Liquidity Facilities 41 No Acceleration Provision except for Liquidity Facility Bonds 42 The Sales Tax 42 Impact of Bankruptcy of the Commission 42 Proposition 218 43 Further Initiatives 43 Loss of Tax Exemption 43 Loss of Subsidy Payments 43 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 44 LITIGATION 44 TAX MATTERS 44 CERTAIN LEGAL MATTERS 44 RATINGS 45 50429258 5 I1 • • 222 • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page REMARKETING AGENTS 45 FINANCIAL ADVISOR 45 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE 46 MISCELLANEOUS 46 APPENDIX A -- Commission Audited Financial Statements For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010 A-1 APPENDIX B -- County Demographic and Economic Information B-1 APPENDIX C -- Summary of Certain Provisions of the Indenture C -1 APPENDIX D -- Book -Entry System D-1 APPENDIX E -- Bond Counsel Opinion E-1 APPENDIX F -- Continuing Disclosure Agreement F -1 50429258.5 Ill • • • 224 • • • REMARKETING MEMORANDUM $174,700,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series $80,300,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series A General $61,360,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series B INTRODUCTION $33,040,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2009 Series C This Remarketing Memorandum, which includes the cover page and the appendices hereto, sets forth certain information in connection with the remarketing by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") of $80,300,000 principal amount of Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), 2009 Series A (the "2009 Series A Bonds"), $61,360,000 principal amount of Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), 2009 Series B (the "2009 Series B Bonds") and $33,040,000 principal amount of Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), 2009 Series C (the "2009 Series C Bonds" and, together with the 2009 Series A Bonds and the 2009 Series B Bonds, the "2009 Bonds"). As used herein, the term "Bonds" means any Bonds, including the 2009 Bonds, issued pursuant to the Indenture (as defined below). On November 30, 2010, the Commission issued its $37,630,000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2010 Series A (Tax -Exempt) (the "2010 Series A Bonds") and $112,370,000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2010 Series B (Taxable Build America Bonds) (the "2010 Series B Bonds" and, together with the 2010 Series A Bonds, the "2010 Bonds"). The 2010 Bonds are secured by Revenues (as defined below) on a parity with the 2009 Bonds. Authority for Issuance The 2009 Bonds were issued by the Commission under and pursuant to the Riverside County Transportation Sales Tax Act, being Division 25 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California (Section 240000 et seq.) (the "Act"), the Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance, adopted by the Commission on May 8, 2002 and approved by at least two-thirds of electors of the County of Riverside, California (the "County") 50429258.5 225 voting on such proposition in the November 5, 2002 election, and any amendments or extensions thereto (collectively, and together with the Act, the "Law"); and an Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2008 (the "2008 Indenture"), as amended and supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2008 (the "First Supplemental Indenture") and the Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 1, 2009 (the "Second Supplemental Indenture"), each between the Commission and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"). In connection with the issuance of the 2010 Bonds, the 2008 Indenture was amended and supplemented by the Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2010 (the "Third Supplemental Indenture" and, together with the 2008 Indenture, the First Supplemental Indenture and the Second Supplemental Indenture, the "Existing Indenture"), between the Commission and Trustee. In connection with the extension of the respective Liquidity Facilities (as defined below) for the respective Series of 2009 Bonds, the Existing Indenture will be further amended and supplemented by a Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2011 (the "Fourth Supplemental Indenture" and, together with the Existing Indenture, the "Indenture"), between the Commission and the Trustee, providing for the reduction of the 2009 Bond Reserve Requirement to [$0]. See "SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE 2009 BONDS — No Reserve Fund" herein. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in "APPENDIX C — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE" or in the Indenture. Purpose and Application of Original Proceeds The proceeds of the 2009 Bonds were applied to (i) refund all of the Commission's then outstanding Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) Series 2008 (the "Refunded Bonds"), (ii) retire $53,716,000 aggregate principal amount of the Commission's then outstanding Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A (the "Notes"), (iii) fund a portion of a debt service reserve for the 2009 Bonds, and (iv) pay costs of issuance of the 2009 Bonds. The 2009 Bonds The 2009 Bonds are dated October 1, 2009 and currently bear interest at a Weekly Rate during a Weekly Rate Period. Interest on the 2009 Bonds during a Weekly Rate Period is payable on the first Business Day of each calendar month. The Remarketing Agent for each Series sets a Weekly Rate for such 2009 Bonds, by 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on each Wednesday (or the immediately succeeding Business Day, if such Wednesday is not a Business Day) for the next Calendar Week; provided, that, the Weekly Rate for the first Calendar Week (or portion thereof) following a Conversion Date resulting in a change in the Interest Rate Determination Method to a Weekly Rate shall be set by such Remarketing Agent on the Business Day immediately preceding such Conversion Date. See "THE 2009 BONDS — Weekly Rate" herein. The 2009 Bonds were issued as fully registered bonds without coupons in the denominations of $100,000 and any integral multiple of $5,000 in excess thereof. The 2009 Bonds are registered in the name of Cede & Co., as holder of the 2009 Bonds and nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"). Purchasers will not receive physical certificates representing their interest in the 2009 Bonds purchased. 50429258.5 2 • • • 226 • • This Remarketing Memorandum describes terms of the 2009 Bonds only during a Weekly Rate Period. There are significant differences in the terms of the 2009 Bonds bearing interest using other Interest Rate Determination Methods. This Remarketing Memorandum is not intended to provide information with respect to the 2009 Bonds bearing interest at a Rate other than a Weekly Rate. The 2009 Bonds are subject to optional and mandatory sinking fund redemption and to optional and mandatory tender for purchase. See "THE 2009 BONDS" herein. Security for the 2009 Bonds The 2009 Bonds are limited obligations of the Commission payable from and secured by certain revenues (the "Revenues") pledged under the Indenture, including a pledge of revenues (the "Sales Tax Revenues") derived from a Y2 -cent sales tax that became effective on July 1, 2009 (the "Sales Tax"), imposed in the County in accordance with the Law and the California Transactions and Use Tax Law (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7251 et seq.), net of an administrative fee paid to the California State Board of Equalization (the "Board of Equalization") in connection with the collection and disbursement of the Sales Tax. The Sales Tax was approved by more than a two-thirds vote of the electorate of the County on November 5, 2002 and is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2039. NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR PUBLIC AGENCY THEREOF, OTHER THAN THE COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT OF THE PLEDGE OF THE REVENUES, IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE 2009 BONDS. Liquidity Facilities Payment of the purchase price of tendered 2009 Bonds is payable from the proceeds of remarketing of the 2009 Bonds and, to the extent remarketing proceeds are insufficient, from amounts available under separate Standby Bond Purchase Agreements, each dated as of October 1, 2009, as amended on September 1, 2011 (each, a "Liquidity Facility" and, together, the "Liquidity Facilities"), each by and between the Commission and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the "Liquidity Provider"), relating to each Series of 2009 Bonds and thereafter from such Alternate Liquidity Facility as may be obtained by the Commission to provide for payment of the purchase price of the 2009 Bonds. Each Liquidity Facility terminates on September 30, 2014, unless extended or terminated sooner in accordance with its terms. See "THE LIQUIDITY FACILITIES" and "THE LIQUIDITY PROVIDER" herein. [No Reserve Fund Upon issuance of the 2009 Bonds, a 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund was established pursuant to the Second Supplemental Indenture for the 2009 Bonds in the amount of $14,213,201, representing the then effective 2009 Bonds Reserve Requirement. Pursuant to the Indenture, including the Fourth Supplemental Indenture, and with the consent of the Liquidity Provider, effective on September 30, 2011 the Commission is reducing the 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund 50429258.5 3 227 Requirement to $0. See "SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE 2009 BONDS — No Reserve Fund" herein.] Existing Swaps The Commission has entered into interest rate swap agreements currently with a combined notional amount of $174,700,000 (subject to amortization corresponding to the amortization of the 2009 Bonds), with an effective date of October 1, 2009. The swaps expire on June 1, 2029 and are designed when combined with the interest obligation with respect to the 2009 Bonds to approximate a synthetic fixed rate. Under the swaps, the Commission has agreed to pay a fixed interest rate to the swap providers and the swap providers have agreed to pay the Commission a floating rate of interest based upon an index. The Commission's obligation to make regularly scheduled payments under the swaps constitutes a Parity Obligation under the Indenture. The Commission's obligation to pay any early termination amounts under the swaps is secured by a pledge of Sales Tax Revenues subordinate to the pledge in favor of the 2009 Bonds. See "OTHER SALES TAX OBLIGATIONS — Existing Swap Agreements" herein. Continuing Disclosure The Commission has voluntarily agreed to follow the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule"), promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and in such connection delivered a Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the "Continuing Disclosure Agreement"), in which the Commission undertook, for the benefit of the beneficial owners of the 2009 Bonds, to provide certain information to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB") as set forth therein. See "APPENDIX F — CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT." Remarketing Agents The Remarketing Agent for the 2009 Series A Bonds is Barclays Capital Inc. (the "2009 Series A Remarketing Agent"). The Remarketing Agent for the 2009 Series B Bonds is De La Rosa & Co. (the "2009 Series B Remarketing Agent"). The Remarketing Agent for the 2009 Series C Bonds is Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC (the "2009 Series C Remarketing Agent" and, together with the 2009 Series A Remarketing Agent and the 2009 Series B Remarketing Agent, the "Remarketing Agents"). See "SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE 2009 BONDS SUBJECT TO OPTIONAL TENDER AND REMARKETING" herein. References The descriptions and summaries of various documents hereinafter set forth do not purport to be comprehensive or definitive, and reference is made to each such document for the complete details of all terms and conditions. All statements herein are qualified in their entirety by reference to each such document, copies of which are available for inspection at the offices of the Commission. 50429258.5 4 • 228 • • • THE 2009 BONDS General The 2009 Bonds are dated October I, 2009 and bear interest at a Weekly Rate during a Weekly Rate Period. This Remarketing Memorandum describes terms of the 2009 Bonds only during a Weekly Rate Period. There are significant differences in the terms of the 2009 Bonds bearing interest using other Interest Rate Determination Methods. This Remarketing Memorandum is not intended to provide information with respect to the 2009 Bonds bearing interest at a Rate other than a Weekly Rate. Interest on the 2009 Bonds during a Weekly Rate Period is payable on the first Business Day of each calendar month. "Business Day" means any day other than (I) a Saturday, Sunday, or a day on which banking institutions in the State, the State of New York or the jurisdiction in which the Corporate Trust Office of the Trustee is located are authorized or obligated by law or executive order to be closed, (2) for purposes of payments and other actions relating to Bonds secured by Credit Enhancement or supported by a Liquidity Facility, a day upon which commercial banks in the city in which is located the office of the issuing bank at which demands for payment under the Credit Enhancement or Liquidity Facility, as applicable, are to be presented are authorized or obligated by law or executive order to be closed, or (3) a day on which the New York Stock Exchange is closed. DTC is the initial securities depository for the 2009 Bonds. See "APPENDIX D — BOOK -ENTRY SYSTEM." Under the Indenture, the Commission may appoint a successor securities depository to DTC for the 2009 Bonds. The Holders of the 2009 Bonds have no right to a book -entry only system for the 2009 Bonds. The information under this caption, "THE 2009 BONDS," is subject in its entirety to the provisions described in "APPENDIX D — BOOK -ENTRY SYSTEM" while the 2009 Bonds are in the book -entry only system. There are a number of provisions in the Indenture relating to the terms of 2009 Bonds purchased by the Liquidity Provider that are not described in this Remarketing Memorandum. All references to the terms of the 2009 Bonds in this Remarketing Memorandum describe only 2009 Bonds that are not owned by the Liquidity Provider unless expressly indicated herein. The 2009 Bonds will be subject to optional and mandatory sinking fund redemption and to optional and mandatory tender for purchase as described herein. See "THE 2009 BONDS — Redemption" herein. Weekly Rate The Remarketing Agent for each Series sets a Weekly Rate for such 2009 Bonds, by 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on each Wednesday (or the immediately succeeding Business Day, if such Wednesday is not a Business Day) for the next Calendar Week; provided, that, the Weekly Rate for the first Calendar Week (or portion thereof) following a Conversion Date resulting in a change in the Interest Rate Determination Method to a Weekly Rate shall be set by such Remarketing Agent on the Business Day immediately preceding such Conversion Date. Each Weekly Rate shall be the rate of interest that, if borne by such 2009 Bonds in the Weekly Rate Period, would, in the judgment of the Remarketing Agent, having due regard for 50429258.5 5 229 the prevailing financial market conditions for Tax -Exempt Securities that are of the same general nature as such 2009 Bonds for which the Weekly Rate is to be determined, or Tax -Exempt Securities that are competitive as to credit and maturity (or period for tender) with the credit and maturity (or period for tender) of the 2009 Bonds for which the Weekly Rate is to be determined, be the lowest interest rate that would enable the Remarketing Agent to place such 2009 Bonds at a price equal to 100% of the aggregate principal amount of such 2009 Bonds (plus accrued interest, if any) on the first day of such Weekly Rate Period. See "APPENDIX C — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE — Additional Provisions Regarding Determination of Weekly Rates." Conversion of Interest Rate Right of Conversion. The Interest Rate Determination Method for any Series of 2009 Bonds is subject to Conversion from time to time by the Commission, with such right to be exercised by delivery of a Conversion Notice to the Notice Parties for the 2009 Bonds of such Series as follows: (1) at least two Business Days prior to the fifteenth day preceding the effective date of such proposed Conversion, in the event of a Conversion from the Weekly Rate to a Daily Rate or Commercial Paper Rate; and (2) at least three Business Days prior to the fifteenth day preceding the effective date of such proposed Conversion, in the event of a Conversion to a Long -Term Rate or a Fixed Rate. The date of the proposed Conversion must be a Business Day and a date on which such 2009 Bonds are subject to mandatory tender. The Conversion Notice must be accompanied by (i) an Opinion of Bond Counsel stating that the Conversion is authorized and permitted under the Indenture and will not, in and of itself, adversely affect the Tax -Exempt status of the interest on the 2009 Bonds to be converted, and (ii) a notice of any 2009 Liquidity Facility or any 2009 Credit Enhancement, if at the same time as such 2009 Bonds are being converted an Alternate Liquidity Facility or a new 2009 Credit Enhancement with respect to such 2009 Bonds will be provided. No Conversion to a new Interest Rate Determination Method may take effect under the Indenture unless each of the following conditions shall have been satisfied: (i) the Trustee shall have received a Favorable Opinion of Bond Counsel with respect to such Conversion; (ii) all 2009 Bonds to be converted are successfully purchased or deemed purchased (from remarketing proceeds or from funds provided by the 2009 Liquidity Provider) and remarketed in the new Interest Rate Determination Method on the Conversion Date; (iii) in the case of a Conversion to a Daily Rate or a Commercial Paper Rate, the 2009 Liquidity Facility for such 2009 Bonds must cover principal plus accrued interest, (computed at the Maximum Interest Rate then in effect on the basis of a 365 day year and actual days elapsed or a 360 day year of twelve 30 day months, as applicable) for the maximum number of days between Interest Payment Dates permitted under that Interest Rate Determination Method, plus such additional number of days, if any, as shall be required by each Rating Agency then rating such 2009 Bonds; provided that if the number of days of interest coverage provided by the applicable 2009 Liquidity Facility is being changed from the number of days previously in 50429258.5 6 • 230 • • place, the Trustee shall have also received a Rating Confirmation from each of the Rating Agencies then rating such 2009 Bonds; and (iv) such other conditions as are specified in the Indenture. On the Conversion Date, the Commission may, at its sole option, purchase 2009 Bonds not remarketed to other investors, but it will be under no obligation to do so. Conversion of the Interest Rate Determination Method requires that all 2009 Bonds to be converted must be tendered for purchase on the Conversion Date. See "APPENDIX C — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE." Notice of Conversion to DTC and Beneficial Owners. Upon receipt of a Conversion Notice, as soon as possible, but in any event not less than 15 days prior to the proposed Conversion Date, the Trustee is to give notice of the proposed Conversion to DTC by first-class mail. Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to DTC Direct Participants, by DTC Direct Participants to DTC Indirect Participants, and by DTC Direct Participants and DTC Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners of 2009 Bonds to be converted will be governed by arrangements among them, and the Commission and the Trustee will not have any responsibility or obligation to send a Conversion Notice to Beneficial Owners of 2009 Bonds. Failure of DTC or a Beneficial Owner of 2009 Bonds to receive the notice described in the preceding paragraph, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of any Rate or any continuation of or change in the Interest Rate Determination Method for any of the 2009 Bonds or extend the period for tendering any of the 2009 Bonds for purchase, and the Trustee will not be liable to DTC or any Beneficial Owner of a 2009 Bond by reason of the failure of such Holder to receive such notice or any defect therein. Rescission of Notice of Conversion. Notwithstanding anything in the Indenture to the contrary, the Commission may rescind any previously given Conversion Notice by giving written notice thereof to the Notice Parties two or more Business Days prior to the proposed Conversion Date. If the Trustee receives notice of such rescission prior to the time the Trustee has given notice of the proposed Conversion to DTC, then the Conversion Notice previously delivered by the Commission shall be of no force and effect. If the Trustee receives notice from the Commission of such rescission after the Trustee has given notice of the proposed Conversion to DTC, then the 2009 Bonds subject to the proposed conversion shall continue to be subject to mandatory tender for purchase on the proposed Conversion Date (unless, prior to the proposed Conversion Date, such 2009 Bonds were in a Long -Term Rate Period for which there was no Liquidity Facility) and the Rate Period for such 2009 Bonds shall automatically adjust to, or continue as, a Weekly Rate Period on the proposed Conversion Date. No Opinion of Bond Counsel is required in connection with any automatic adjustment to a Weekly Rate Period. Failure to Convert. The Indenture includes provisions setting forth the procedures and conditions for the exercise by the Commission of its right of Conversion of the Interest Rate Determination Method for any Series of 2009 Bonds, including the conditions described above under "— Right of Conversion." Under certain circumstances, a planned Conversion may notbe completed. However, once a notice of Conversion is provided to DTC as described above, all 2009 Bonds subject to the proposed conversion must be tendered for purchase. 50429258.5 7 231 The Indenture provides that a failed Conversion of the Interest Rate Determination Method for any Series of 2009 Bonds means that such 2009 Bonds will continue to bear interest at the Interest Rate Determination Method in effect prior to the proposed Conversion Date (as if no proceedings for Conversion had taken place) and the rate of interest thereon shall be determined on the proposed Conversion Date. If the failed conversion is due to insufficient funds, such 2009 Bonds will be returned to their respective Holders and will bear interest at the lesser of the SIFMA Swap Index plus three percent (3%) and the Maximum Interest Rate of 12% from the date of such failed purchase until all such 2009 Bonds are purchased as required in accordance with the Indenture. Such failed purchase and return does not constitute an Event of Default under the Indenture. Redemption Optional Redemption. The 2009 Bonds of a Series are subject to redemption prior to their stated maturity, at the option of the Commission, in whole or in part, in Authorized Denominations, on any Business Day, at a Redemption Price equal to the amount of 2009 Bonds called for redemption, plus accrued interest, if any, without premium. "Authorized Denominations" means $100,000 and any integral multiple of $5,000 in excess thereof. Mandatory Redemption of the 2009 Bonds from Mandatory Sinking Account Payments. The 2009 Bonds of each Series are subject to mandatory redemption from Mandatory Sinking Account Payments on each date a Mandatory Sinking Account Payment for such 2009 Bonds is due, and in the principal amount equal to the Mandatory Sinking Account Payment due on such date at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued but unpaid interest to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth below. Redemption Date (June 1) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Final Maturity. 50429258.5 2009 Series A Bonds Mandatory Sinking Account Payment $3,000,000 3,100,000 3,300,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 3,700,000 3,900,000 4,100,000 4,300,000 8 Redemption Date (June 1) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029T Mandatory Sinking Account Payment $4,400,000 4,600,000 4,900,000 5,100,000 5,300,000 5,500,000 5,800,000 6,000,000 6,300,000 • 232 • • Redemption Date (June 1) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 t Final Maturity. Redemption Date (June 1) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 t Final Maturity. 2009 Series B Bonds Mandatory Sinking Account Payment $2,275,000 2,405,000 2,470,000 2,600,000 2,730,000 2,860,000 2,990,000 3,120,000 3,250,000 Redemption Date (June 1) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 20291- 2009 Series C Bonds Mandatory Sinking Account Payment $1,225,000 1,295,000 1,330,000 1,400,000 1,470,000 1,540,000 1,610,000 1,680,000 1,750,000 Redemption Date (June 1) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029t Mandatory Sinking Account Payment $3,380,000 3,575,000 3,705,000 3,900,000 4,030,000 4,225,000 4,420,000 4,615,000 4,810,000 Mandatory Sinking Account Payment $1,820,000 1,925,000 1,995,000 2,100,000 2,170,000 2,275,000 2,380,000 2,485,000 2,590,000 Purchase In Lieu of Redemption The Commission reserves the right at all times to purchase any of its 2009 Bonds on the open market. In lieu of mandatory redemption, the Commission may surrender to the Trustee for cancellation 2009 Bonds purchased on the open market, and such 2009 Bonds shall be cancelled by the Trustee. If any 2009 Bonds are so cancelled, the Commission may designate the Mandatory Sinking Account Payments or portions thereof within such 2009 Bonds so purchased that are to be reduced as a result of such cancellation. General Redemption Provisions Selection of 2009 Bonds for Redemption. The Commission will designate which Series of 2009 Bonds and which maturities of such Series are to be redeemed; provided, that 2009 Bonds of such Series registered in the name of the 2009 Liquidity Provider must be redeemed prior to redeeming any other 2009 Bonds of such Series. If less than all 2009 Bonds of a Series 50429258.5 9 233 maturing on any one date are to be redeemed at any one time, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each DTC Direct Participant in the Series to be redeemed. For purposes of such selection, the 2009 Bonds of such Series shall be deemed to be composed of multiples of minimum Authorized Denominations and any such multiple may be separately redeemed. The Commission may designate the Mandatory Sinking Account Payments, or portions thereof, that are to be reduced as a result of such redemption. Notice of Redemption. Each notice of redemption is to be mailed by the Trustee not less than 10 nor more than 90 days prior to the redemption date, to DTC, the Remarketing Agents and other parties specified in the Indenture. Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to DTC Direct Participants, by DTC Direct Participants to DTC Indirect Participants, and by DTC Direct Participants and DTC Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners of 2009 Bonds will be governed by arrangements among them, and the Commission and the Trustee will not have any responsibility or obligation to send a notice of redemption except to DTC. Failure of DTC to receive any notice of redemption or any defect therein will not affect the sufficiency of any proceedings for redemption. Rescission. The Commission may, at its option, prior to the date fixed for redemption in any notice of redemption rescind and cancel such notice of redemption by written notice of the Commission to the Trustee and the Trustee shall mail notice of such cancellation to the recipients of the notice of redemption being cancelled. Effect of Redemption. Notice of redemption having been duly given as aforesaid, and moneys for payment of the redemption price of, together with interest accrued to the redemption date on, the 2009 Bonds (or portions thereof) so called for redemption being held by the Trustee, on the redemption date designated in such notice, the 2009 Bonds (or portions thereof) so called for redemption shall become due and payable at the redemption price specified in such notice, together with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption, interest on the 2009 Bonds so called for redemption shall cease to accrue, such 2009 Bonds (or portions thereof) shall cease to be entitled to any benefit or security under the Indenture, and the Holders of such 2009 Bonds shall have no rights in respect thereof except to receive payment of said redemption price and accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption. Partial Redemption of Bonds. Upon surrender of any Bond to be redeemed in part only, the Commission shall execute, and the Trustee shall authenticate and deliver to the Holder of such 2009 Bond, at the expense of the Commission, a new Bond or Bonds of Minimum Authorized Denominations equal in aggregate principal amount to the unredeemed portion of the Bond surrendered, at the same maturity and terms as the surrendered Bond. Tender Provisions Optional Tender of 2009 Bonds for Purchase. Except as otherwise provided in the Indenture, during any Weekly Rate Period, any 2009 Bond or (provided that the amount so purchased and the amount not so purchased must each be an Authorized Denomination) a portion thereof, may be tendered for purchase on any Business Day at the applicable Purchase Price, payable in accordance with the Indenture in immediately available funds, upon (A) delivery by the Holder or Beneficial Owner of such 2009 Bond to the Remarketing Agents and to the Trustee 50429258.5 10 234 • • at its Principal Office of an irrevocable written notice or notice by Electronic Means by 5:00 p.m. (New York City time) on any Business Day at least seven (7) days prior to the Purchase Date, which states the principal amount of such 2009 Bond to be tendered for purchase and the Purchase Date, and (B) delivery of such 2009 Bond to the Trustee on the Purchase Date in accordance with the Indenture. Mandatory Tender of 2009 Bonds for Purchase. The 2009 Bonds shall be subject to mandatory tender for purchase at the applicable Purchase Price, at the following times and upon the occurrence of any of the events stated below: (1) with respect to any Series of 2009 Bonds, on the Conversion Date for such 2009 Bonds to a new Interest Rate Determination Method specified in a Conversion Notice (whether or not the proposed Conversion becomes effective on such date, unless converting from a Long - Term Rate Period for which there is no Liquidity Facility and the proposed Conversion does not occur, in which case the mandatory tender will be cancelled); (2) (A) on the fifth (5th) Business Day preceding (i) the scheduled Expiration of a 2009 Liquidity Facility or (ii) the Termination of a 2009 Liquidity Facility, at the election of the Commission as permitted by such 2009 Liquidity Facility; and (B) on the date of the provision of an Alternate Liquidity Facility for such 2009 Bonds pursuant to the Indenture and the resultant Termination of the existing 2009 Liquidity Facility; provided, however, that, notwithstanding any other provision of the Indenture to the contrary, no mandatory tender for purchase shall be required pursuant to this subsection if a Rating Confirmation shall be delivered by each Rating Agency then rating the 2009 Bonds on the date of the provision of the Alternate Liquidity Facility pursuant to the Indenture and the resultant Termination of the existing 2009 Liquidity Facility; and (3) with respect to each 2009 Bond bearing interest at a Weekly Rate or a Daily Rate upon receipt by the Trustee of written notice from the 2009 Liquidity Provider for such 2009 Bonds that an event of default or an event of termination (other than an immediate termination or suspension) has occurred under the related 2009 Liquidity Facility with the effect that the obligations of such 2009 Liquidity Provider to purchase such 2009 Bonds or otherwise provide for the Purchase Price of such 2009 Bonds under such 2009 Liquidity Facility shall terminate on the date specified in such notice, in which event such 2009 Bonds shall be subject to purchase on a Business Day selected by the Trustee which date shall be not more than five (5) Business Days after receipt of such notice, but in no event later than the Business Day preceding the termination date specified in the notice received from such 2009 Liquidity Provider. Notice of mandatory tender for purchase on the Conversion Date shall be given by the Trustee to the Holders as provided in the Indenture. The 2009 Bonds will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as Holder of the 2009 Bonds and nominee for DTC. The Trustee shall give notice by first class mail to the Holders of affected 2009 Bonds of each Termination of a 2009 Liquidity Facility and each Expiration of a 2009 Liquidity Facility making 2009 Bonds subject to mandatory tender as provided above, which notice shall (i) state the date of such Termination, substitution or Expiration; (ii) state that unless a Rating Confirmation is received with respect to the substitution (in which event no mandatory tender for purchase shall occur), such 2009 Bonds shall be subject to mandatory tender for purchase on the specified Purchase Date at the 50429258.5 11 235 applicable Purchase Price (which shall be specified in such notice); and (iii) be mailed by the Trustee not later than the fifteenth (15th) day prior to such Termination, substitution or expiration. The Trustee shall give notice by first class mail within two (2) Business Days of receipt of a notice from a 2009 Liquidity Provider, to the Holders of the affected 2009 Bonds at their addresses shown on the bond registration books maintained by the Trustee which notice shall: (1) state such 2009 Bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase at the applicable Purchase Price (which shall be specified in such notice); and (2) state the Purchase Date. With respect to any 2009 Bond that is registered in book -entry form with a Securities Depository, delivery of such 2009 Bond to the Trustee in connection with any optional or mandatory tender for purchase pursuant to the Indenture shall be effected by the making of, or the irrevocable authorization to make, appropriate entries on the books of the Securities Depository for such 2009 Bond or any Participant of such Securities Depository to reflect the transfer of the beneficial ownership interest in such 2009 Bond to the account of the Trustee, or to the account of a Participant of such Securities Depository acting on behalf of the Trustee. With respect to any 2009 Bond that is not registered in book -entry form with a Securities Depository, delivery of such 2009 Bond to the Trustee in connection with any optional or mandatory tender for purchase shall be effected by physical delivery of such 2009 Bond to the Trustee at its Principal Office, by 1:00 p.m. (New York City time) on the Purchase Date, accompanied by an instrument of transfer thereof, in a form satisfactory to the Trustee, executed in blank by the Holder thereof with the signature of such Holder guaranteed in accordance with the guidelines set forth by one of the nationally recognized medallion signature programs. If moneys sufficient to pay the Purchase Price of 2009 Bonds to be purchased pursuant to the Indenture shall be held by the Trustee on the applicable Purchase Date, such 2009 Bonds shall be deemed to have been purchased for all purposes of the Indenture, irrespective of whether or not such 2009 Bonds shall have been delivered to the Trustee or transferred on the books of a Securities Depository for such 2009 Bonds, and neither the former Holder or Beneficial Owner of such 2009 Bonds nor any other person shall have any claim thereon, under the Indenture or otherwise, for any amount other than the Purchase Price thereof. In the event of non -delivery of any 2009 Bond to be purchased pursuant to the Indenture, the Trustee shall segregate and hold uninvested the moneys for the Purchase Price of such 2009 Bond in trust, without liability for interest thereon, for the benefit of the former Holders or Beneficial Owners of such 2009 Bond, who shall, except as provided in the following sentence, thereafter be restricted exclusively to such moneys for the satisfaction of any claim for the Purchase Price of such 2009 Bond. Any moneys that the Trustee shall segregate and hold in trust for the payment of the Purchase Price of any 2009 Bond and remaining unclaimed for two (2) years after the date of purchase shall, subject to satisfaction of all amounts then due and payable to the Liquidity Provider (other than 2009 Liquidity Facility Bonds), be paid automatically to the Commission. After the payment of such unclaimed moneys to the Commission, the former Holder or Beneficial Owner of such 2009 Bond shall look only to the Commission for the payment thereof. 50429258.5 12 • • • 236 • • • Mandatory Tender for Purchase of 2009 Bonds at the Direction of the Commission. The 2009 Bonds, or any of them, shall be subject to mandatory tender for purchase by the Commission, in whole or in part (such that the portion that is subject to mandatory tender for purchase and the portion not subject to such mandatory tender shall each be in an Authorized Denomination), at the applicable Optional Purchase Price on each Optional Purchase Date. "Optional Purchase Price" means, with respect to the 2009 Bonds to be purchased pursuant to the Indenture on any Optional Purchase Date, the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to such Optional Purchase Date, plus an amount equal to the premium, if any, that would be payable upon the redemption, at the option of the Commission exercised on such Optional Purchase Date, of such 2009 Bonds. "Optional Purchase Date" means each date on which the 2009 Bonds would be subject to optional redemption and therefore are subject to purchase at the option of the Commission pursuant to the Indenture. If the Commission determines to purchase any 2009 Bonds on any Optional Purchase Date, the Commission shall provide the Trustee with written notice of such determination at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Optional Purchase Date, which notice shall specify the Series of 2009 Bonds and the principal amount of such 2009 Bonds of each maturity that are to be purchased and the Optional Purchase Date on which such purchase is to occur. When the Trustee shall receive notice from the Commission of its determination to purchase 2009 Bonds, the Trustee shall give notice, in the name of the Commission, of the mandatory tender for purchase of such 2009 Bonds, which notice shall be mailed, by first class mail, postage prepaid, not more than ninety (90) nor less than ten (10) days before the Optional Purchase Date to the Holders of any 2009 Bonds or portions of 2009 Bonds to be purchased at their addresses appearing in the bond registration books maintained by the Trustee, with a copy to the Notice Parties. Such notice shall specify the Series of 2009 Bonds and the maturities of such 2009 Bonds to be purchased, the Optional Purchase Date, the Optional Purchase Price and the place or places where the Optional Purchase Price due upon such tender for purchase shall be payable and, if less than all of the 2009 Bonds of such Series and of like maturity are to be purchased, the letters and numbers or other distinguishing marks of such 2009 Bonds so to be purchased, and, in the case of 2009 Bonds to be purchased in part only, such notice shall also specify the respective portions of the principal amount thereof to be purchased. Such notice shall further state that on such Optional Purchase Date there shall become due and payable upon each 2009 Bond to be purchased, the Optional Purchase Price thereof, or the Optional Purchase Price of the specified portions of the principal amount thereof to be purchased in the case of 2009 Bonds to be purchased in part only, and that from and after such Optional Purchase Date interest on such 2009 Bond for the benefit of the current Holder of such 2009 Bond or the portion of such 2009 Bond to be purchased shall cease to accrue and be payable. Receipt of such notice of mandatory tender for purchase shall not be a condition precedent to the mandatory tender for purchase of the 2009 Bonds and failure of any Holder of a 2009 Bond to receive any such notice or any defect in such notice shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for the mandatory tender for purchase of the 2009 Bonds. If at the time the Trustee sends any notice of mandatory tender for purchase of the 2009 Bonds, the Commission has not deposited with the Trustee an amount sufficient to pay the full Optional Purchase Price of the 2009 Bonds, or the portions thereof, to be purchased, such notice 50429258.5 l3 237 shall state that such mandatory tender for purchase is conditional upon the receipt by the Trustee on or prior to the Optional Purchase Date fixed for such purchase of moneys sufficient to pay the Optional Purchase Price of such 2009 Bonds, or the portions thereof to be purchased, and that if such moneys shall not have been so received said notice shall be of no force and effect and the Commission shall not be required to purchase such 2009 Bonds. In the event that such notice of mandatory tender for purchase contains such a condition and such moneys are not so received, no purchase of the 2009 Bonds identified in the notice of mandatory tender for purchase shall be made and the Trustee shall, within a reasonable time thereafter, give notice, to the Remarketing Agent and to the persons and in the manner in which the notice of tender was given, that such moneys were not so received and that there will be no purchase of 2009 Bonds pursuant to the notice of mandatory tender for purchase. Tenders of 2009 Bonds and Deliveries of Converted 2009 Bonds Are Subject to DTC Procedures. As long as the book -entry only system is in effect with respect to the 2009 Bonds, all tenders for purchase and deliveries upon Conversion of 2009 Bonds tendered for purchase or subject to mandatory tender under the provisions of the Indenture shall be made pursuant to DTC's procedures as in effect from time to time, and neither the Commission, the Trustee, nor any Remarketing Agent shall have any responsibility for or liability with respect to the implementation of these procedures. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE 2009 BONDS SUBJECT TO OPTIONAL TENDER AND REMARKETING The information under this caption "SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE 2009 BONDS SUBJECT TO OPTIONAL TENDER AND REMARKETING" has been provided by the Remarketing Agents for inclusion in this Remarketing Memorandum and the Commission makes no representation regarding its completeness or accuracy. The Remarketing Agents are Paid by the Commission The Remarketing Agents' responsibilities include determining the interest rate from time to time and remarketing 2009 Bonds that are optionally or mandatorily tendered by the Owners thereof (subject, in each case, to the terms of the applicable Remarketing Agreement), as further described in this Remarketing Memorandum. The Remarketing Agents are appointed by the Commission and are paid by the Commission for their services. As a result, the interests of the Remarketing Agents may differ from those of existing Holders and potential purchasers of such 2009 Bonds. The Remarketing Agents Routinely Purchase 2009 Bonds for their Own Account The Remarketing Agents act as remarketing agent for a variety of variable rate demand obligations and, in their sole discretion, routinely purchase such obligations for their own account. The Remarketing Agents are permitted, but not obligated, to purchase tendered 2009 Bonds for their own account and, in their sole discretion, routinely acquire such tendered 2009 Bonds to achieve a successful remarketing of the 2009 Bonds (i.e., because there otherwise are not enough buyers to purchase the 2009 Bonds) or for other reasons. However, the Remarketing Agents are not obligated to purchase 2009 Bonds, and may cease doing so at any time without 50429258.5 14 • 238 • • • notice. The Remarketing Agents may also make a market in the 2009 Bonds by routinely purchasing and selling 2009 Bonds other than in connection with an optional or mandatory tender and remarketing. Such purchases and sales may be at or below par. However, the Remarketing Agents are not required to make a market in the 2009 Bonds. The Remarketing Agents may also sell any 2009 Bonds they have purchased to one or more affiliated investment vehicles for collective ownership or enter into derivative arrangements with affiliates or others in order to reduce its exposure to the 2009 Bonds. The purchase of 2009 Bonds by the Remarketing Agents may create the appearance that there is greater third party demand for the 2009 Bonds in the market than is actually the case. The practices described above also may result in fewer 2009 Bonds being tendered in a remarketing. 2009 Bonds May Be Offered at Different Prices on Any Date Including a Rate Determination Date Pursuant to the Remarketing Agreements, each Remarketing Agent is required to determine the applicable rate of interest that, in its judgment, is the lowest rate that would permit the sale of the applicable 2009 Bonds bearing interest at the applicable interest rate at par plus accrued interest, if any, on and as of the applicable date. The interest rate will reflect, among other factors, the level of market demand for the applicable 2009 Bonds (including whether such Remarketing Agent is willing to purchase such 2009 Bonds for its own account). There may or may not be 2009 Bonds tendered and remarketed on any given date, such Remarketing Agent may or may not be able to remarket any 2009 Bonds tendered for purchase on such date at par and such Remarketing Agent may sell 2009 Bonds at varying prices to different investors on such date or any other date. The Remarketing Agents are not obligated to advise purchasers in a remarketing if they do not have third party buyers for all of the applicable 2009 Bonds at the remarketing price. If a Remarketing Agent owns any 2009 Bonds for its own account, it may, in its sole discretion in a secondary market transaction outside the tender process, offer such 2009 Bonds on any date at a discount to par to some investors. The Ability to Sell the 2009 Bonds Other Than through Tender Process May Be Limited The Remarketing Agents may buy and sell 2009 Bonds other than through the tender process. However, they are not obligated to do so and may cease doing so at any time without notice and may require holders that wish to tender their 2009 Bonds to do so through the tender agent with appropriate notice. Thus, investors who purchase the 2009 Bonds, whether in a remarketing or otherwise, should not assume that they will be able to sell their 2009 Bonds other than by tendering the 2009 Bonds in accordance with the tender process. No Remarketing Agent Successor in Certain Circumstances Under certain circumstances a Remarketing Agent may be removed or have the ability to resign or cease its remarketing efforts, without a successor having been named, subject to the terms of the applicable Remarketing Agreement and the Indenture. 50429258.5 15 • • DEBT SERVICE SCHED ULE Fiscal Year 2009 Bo nds Ending June 30 Principal()' I nterest(2) 2012 $ 6,500,000 $ 6,063,345.88 2013 6,800,000 5,821,803.77 2014 7,100,000 5,586,267.11 2015 7,400,000 5,340,638.17 2016 7,800,000 5,098,368 .44 2017 8,100,000 4,814,473.54 2018 8,500,000 4,533,937.76 2019 8,900,000 4,239,632.06 2020 9,300,000 3,942,330.10 2021 9,600,000 3,609,719.42 2022 10,100,000 3,277,299 .57 2023 10,600,000 2,927,432.09 2024 11,100,000 2,567,605 .47 2025 11,500,000 2,176,303.51 2026 12,000,000 1,778,239.73 2027 12,600,000 1,3 62,718.1.8 2028 13,100,000 929,092.26 2029 13,700,000 472,924.79 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Total $174,700,000 $64,542,131. 85 $ 12,105,000 12,710,000 13,345,000 14,010,000 14,630,000 15,275,000 15,955,000 16,660,000 17,330,000 17,980,000 $150,000,000 2010 Bonds Principal()) Interest $ 9,530,525.90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525 .90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525 .90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525 .90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525 .90 9,530,525 .90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525.90 9,530,525.90 8,925,275 .90 8,289,775.90 7,612,948.80 6,659,288.10 5,663,424.00 4,623,654.76 3,537,597.90 2,403,551.70 1,223,898 .60 $230,019,407.76 Subsidy Pavments(3) ($ 2,982,112 .66) (2,982,112.66) (2,982,112 .66) (2,982.112.66) (2,982,112.66) (2,982, 1 12.66) (2,982,112.66) (2,982,112.66) (2,982,1 12 .66) (2,982,112.66) (2,982,1.12.66) (2,982 ,112.66) (2,982,112.66) (2,982 ,112.66) (2,982,112.66) (2,982,112.66) (2,982,1 12.66) (2,982,1 12.66) (2,982,1 12.66) (2,982,1 12.66) (2,982,112.66) (2,969,485.68) (2,635.704.44) (2,287,152 .00) (1,923,232.76) (1,543.112.86) (1,081,598.26) (550,754 .38) ($75,615,406 .24) Aggregate Annual Net Debt Service $ 19,111,759 .12 19,170,217.01 19,234,680.35 19,289,051.41 19,446,781 .68 19,462,886.78 19,582,351 .00 19,688,045.30 19,790,743.34 19,758,132.66 19,925,712.81 20,075,845 .33 20,216,018 .71 20,224,716.75 20,326,652.97 20,51 1,1.31.42 20,577,505.50 20,721,338 .03 18,653,413.24 18,653,163.24 18,652,663.24 18,653,463.12 18,653,583.66 18,651,272.00 18,655,422.00 18,654,485.04 18,651,953.44 18,653,144.22 $543,646,133.37 (I) Includes Mandatory Sinking A cco unt Payments. (2) Interest on the 2009 Bonds is calculated assuming the interest rates are equal to the fixed rates on the Existing Swaps, excluding remarketing and liquidity fees. See "OTHER SALES TAX OBLIGATIONS — Existing Swap Agreements. " (3) Under the Indenture, federal subsidy payments to be received in connection with the 2010 Bonds are treated as an off -set to Debt Service . 50429258.5 16 240 • • • SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE 2009 BONDS Limited Obligation THE 2009 BONDS ARE LIMITED TAX OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMMISSION PAYABLE SOLELY FROM REVENUES AS DEFINED AND PROVIDED IN THE INDENTURE AND CERTAIN OTHER FUNDS PLEDGED UNDER THE INDENTURE. THE COMMISSION IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY THE 2009 BONDS EXCEPT FROM REVENUES AND THOSE CERTAIN OTHER FUNDS PLEDGED UNDER THE INDENTURE. THE 2009 BONDS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A DEBT OR LIABILITY OF THE STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OTHER THAN THE COMMISSION, OR A PLEDGE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE STATE OR OF ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE. THE GENERAL FUND OF THE COMMISSION IS NOT LIABLE, AND THE CREDIT OR TAXING POWER (OTHER THAN AS DESCRIBED IN THE INDENTURE) OF THE COMMISSION IS NOT PLEDGED, FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE 2009 BONDS, THEIR INTEREST, OR ANY PREMIUM DUE UPON REDEMPTION OF THE 2009 BONDS. THE 2009 BONDS ARE NOT SECURED BY A LEGAL OR EQUITABLE PLEDGE OF, OR CHARGE, LIEN OR ENCUMBRANCE UPON, ANY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE COMMISSION OR ANY OF ITS INCOME OR RECEIPTS, EXCEPT THE REVENUES AND THE CERTAIN OTHER FUNDS PLEDGED UNDER THE INDENTURE. Pledge of Revenues All Revenues, consisting of Sales Tax Revenues and Swap Revenues are irrevocably pledged by the Commission to secure the punctual payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the 2009 Bonds and any additional Series of Bonds issued under the Indenture and all amounts owing on any Parity Obligations in accordance with their terms. The Revenues shall not be used for any other purpose while any of the Bonds or Parity Obligations remain Outstanding, except as permitted by the provisions of the Indenture permitting the application thereof for the purposes and on the terms and conditions set forth therein. Additionally, all amounts (including proceeds of the Bonds) held by the Trustee under the Indenture (except for amounts held in the Rebate Fund, any Letter of Credit Account and any Bond Purchase Fund) are pledged to secure the payment of all amounts owing on the Bonds and Parity Obligations, subject only to the provisions of the Indenture permitting the application thereof for the purposes and on the terms and conditions set forth therein. Pursuant to the Indenture, the pledge of Revenues constitutes a first lien to secure the Bonds and Parity Obligations. The pledge of Revenues shall be irrevocable until all Bonds issued under the Indenture, including the 2009 Bonds, and all Parity Obligations are no longer Outstanding. The Revenues pledged to the payment of the Bonds and Parity Obligations shall be applied without priority or distinction of one over the other and the Sales Tax Revenues shall constitute a trust fund for the security and payment of the Bonds and Parity Obligations; but nevertheless out of Revenues certain amounts may be applied for other purposes as provided in the Indenture. 50429258.5 17 241 For a detailed description of the Sales Tax and projected receipts of Sales Tax Revenues, see "THE SALES TAX" herein. For a discussion of Swap Revenues, see "OTHER SALES TAX OBLIGATIONS — Existing Swap Agreements" herein. Revenue Fund; Allocation of Revenues As long as any Bonds are Outstanding or any Parity Obligations remain unpaid, the Commission has assigned the Sales Tax Revenues to the Trustee and shall cause the Board of Equalization to transmit the same directly to the Trustee. The Sales Tax Revenues shall be received and held in trust by the Trustee for the benefit of the Holders of the Bonds and any Parity Obligations. The Trustee shall forthwith deposit all Sales Tax Revenues in the Revenue Fund, maintained and held in trust by the Trustee, when and as such Sales Tax Revenues are received by the Trustee. See "APPENDIX C — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE — Allocation of Sales Tax Revenues." Investment income on amounts held by the Trustee (other than amounts held in the Rebate Fund or for which particular instructions are provided) shall also be deposited in the Revenue Fund. In each month while Bonds remain Outstanding, the Trustee is required to set aside receipts of Sales Tax Revenues in the following respective funds, amounts and order of priority (provided that deficiencies in any previously required deposit shall be made up prior to the deposit to a fund subsequent in priority and further provided that set asides or transfers required with respect to Parity Obligations, including certain regularly scheduled payments pursuant to Interest Rate Swap Agreements that are payable on a parity with the 2009 Bonds, shall be made on a parity basis, as provided in the Indenture): 1. Interest Fund. The Indenture requires the Trustee to make monthly deposits in the Interest Fund in an amount equal to (a) one -sixth of the aggregate half -yearly amount of interest becoming due and payable on Outstanding Current Interest Bonds (other than Bonds constituting Variable Rate Indebtedness) during the ensuing six-month period, plus (b) the aggregate amount of interest to accrue during that month on Outstanding Variable Rate Indebtedness, calculated, if the actual rate of interest is not known, at the interest rate specified in writing by the Commission, or if the Commission has not specified an interest rate in writing, calculated at the maximum interest rate borne by such Variable Rate Indebtedness during the month prior to the month of deposit plus one hundred (100) basis points (provided, however, that the amount of such deposit into the Interest Fund for any month may be reduced by the amount by which the deposit in the prior month exceeded the actual amount of interest accrued and paid during that month on said Outstanding Variable Rate Indebtedness and provided further that the amount of such deposit into the Interest Fund for any month will be increased by the amount by which the deposit in the prior month was less than the actual amount of interest accruing during that month on said Outstanding Variable Rate Indebtedness). No deposit need be made into the Interest Fund if the amount contained therein is at least equal to the interest to become due and payable on the Interest Payment Dates falling within the next six (6) months upon all of the Outstanding Bonds issued under the Indenture, and on June 1 and December 1 of each year any excess amounts in the Interest Fund not needed to pay interest on such date (and not held to pay interest on Bonds having Interest Payment Dates other than June 1 and December 1) will be transferred to 50429258.5 18 • • • 242 • • • the Commission (but excluding, in each case, any moneys on deposit in the Interest Fund from the proceeds of any Series of Bonds or other source and reserved as capitalized interest to pay interest on any future Interest Payment Dates following such Interest Payment Dates). All Swap Revenues received with respect to Interest Rate Swap Agreements that are Parity Obligations shall be deposited in the Interest Fund and credited to the above -required deposits, and that payments on such Interest Rate Swap Agreements (other than fees and expenses and termination payments) shall be payable from the Interest Fund and the above -required deposits shall be adjusted to include such payments. 2. Principal Fund; Sinking Accounts. The Indenture also requires the Trustee to make monthly deposits in the Principal Fund in an amount equal to at least (a) one -sixth of the aggregate semiannual amount of principal and accreted value, if applicable, becoming due and payable within the next six months on Outstanding Bonds having semiannual maturity dates, plus (b) one -twelfth of the aggregate yearly amount of principal, accreted value, if applicable, becoming due and payable within the next twelve months on Outstanding Bonds having annual maturity dates, plus (c) one -sixth of the aggregate of the Mandatory Sinking Account Payments to be paid during the next six-month period into the respective Sinking Accounts for the Term Bonds of all Series for which Sinking Accounts have been created and for which semiannual mandatory redemption is required from said Sinking Accounts, plus (d) one -twelfth of the aggregate of the Mandatory Sinking Account Payments to be paid during the next 12 -month period into the respective Sinking Accounts for the Term Bonds of all Series for which Sinking Accounts have been created and for which annual mandatory redemption is required from such Sinking Accounts; provided that if the Commission certifies to the Trustee that any principal payments are expected to be refunded on or prior to their respective due dates or paid from amounts on deposit in a Bond Reserve Fund that would be in excess of the Bond Reserve Requirement applicable to such Bond Reserve Fund upon such payment, no amounts are required to be set aside toward such principal to be so refunded or paid. All of the aforesaid deposits made in connection with future Mandatory Sinking Account Payments are to be made without priority of any payment into any one such Sinking Account over any other such payment. If the Sales Tax Revenues are not sufficient to make the required deposits so that moneys in the Principal Fund on any principal or mandatory redemption date are equal to the amount of Bond Obligation to become due and payable on the Outstanding Serial Bonds of all Series plus the Bond Obligation amount of and redemption premium on the Outstanding Term Bonds required to be redeemed or paid at maturity on such date, then such moneys will be applied on a Proportionate Basis and in such proportion as said Serial Bonds and said Term Bonds shall bear to each other, after first deducting for such purposes from said Term Bonds any of said Term Bonds required to be redeemed annually which will have been redeemed or purchased during the preceding 12 -month period and any of said Term Bonds required to be redeemed semiannually which will have been redeemed or purchased during the six-month period ending on such date or the immediately preceding six month period. In the event that the Sales Tax Revenues will not be sufficient to pay in full all Mandatory Sinking Account Payments required to be paid at any one time into all such Sinking Accounts, then payments into all such Sinking 50429258.5 19 243 Accounts are to be made on a Proportionate Basis, in proportion that the respective Mandatory Sinking Account Payments required to be made into each Sinking Account during the then current 12 -month period bear to the aggregate of all of the Mandatory Sinking Account Payments required to be made into all such Sinking Accounts during such 12 -month period. No deposit must be made into the Principal Fund as long as such fund holds (i) moneys sufficient to pay the Bond Obligations of all then Outstanding Serial Bonds maturing by their terms within the next twelve (12) months plus (ii) the aggregate of all Mandatory Sinking Account Payments required to be made in such 12 -month period, but less any amounts deposited into the Principal Fund during such l2 -month period and theretofore paid from the Principal Fund to redeem or purchase Term Bonds during such 12 -month period; provided that if the Commission certifies to the Trustee that any principal payments are expected to be refunded on or prior to their respective due dates or paid from amounts on deposit in a Bond Reserve Fund that would be in excess of the Bond Reserve Requirement applicable to such Bond Reserve Fund upon such payment, no amounts need be on deposit with respect to such principal payments. At the beginning of each Fiscal Year and in any event not later than June 1 of each year, the Trustee is required to request from the Commission a Certificate of the Commission setting forth the principal payments for which deposits will not be necessary pursuant to the preceding sentence and the reason therefor. On June 1 of each year or as soon as practicable thereafter any excess amounts in the Principal Fund not needed to pay principal on such date (and not held to pay principal on Bonds having principal payment dates other than June 1) are required to be transferred to the Commission. 3. Bond Reserve Fund. The Indenture also requires the Trustee to make deposits to the Bond Reserve Fund, to the extent required. See "—No Reserve Fund." 4. Subordinate Obligations Fund. As long as any Subordinate Obligations remain unpaid, any Revenues remaining in the Revenue Fund after the transfers described in (l), (2) and (3) above have been made shall be transferred to the Notes Trustee. After the Notes Trustee has made the required deposit of Revenues under the Subordinate Indenture, the Notes Trustee shall transfer any remaining Revenues back to the Trustee. 5. Fees and Expenses Fund. At the direction of the Commission, after the transfers described in (1), (2), (3) and (4) above have been made, the Trustee is required to deposit as soon as practicable in each month in the Fees and Expenses Fund (i) amounts necessary for payment of fees, expenses and similar charges (including fees, expenses and similar charges relating to any Liquidity Facility or Credit Enhancement for the Bonds or any Parity Obligations) owing in such month or the following month by the Commission in connection with the Bonds or any Parity Obligations and (ii) amounts necessary for payment of fees, expenses and similar charges owing in such month or the following month by the Commission in connection with Subordinate Obligations. The Commission shall inform the Trustee of such amounts, in writing, on or prior to the first Business Day of each month. 50429258.5 20 • • • 244 • • • Any Revenues remaining in the Revenue Fund after the foregoing transfers described in (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) above, except as the Commission shall otherwise direct in writing or as is otherwise provided in a supplemental indenture, shall be transferred to the Commission on the same Business Day or as soon as practicable thereafter. The Commission may use and apply the Revenues when received by it for any lawful purpose of the Commission, including the redemption of Bonds upon the terms and conditions set forth in the supplemental indenture relating to such Bonds and the purchase of Bonds as and when and at such prices as it may determine. If, five (5) days prior to any principal payment date, Interest Payment Date or mandatory redemption date, the amounts on deposit in the Revenue Fund, the Interest Fund, the Principal Fund, including the Sinking Accounts therein, and, as and to the extent not required to satisfy the Bond Reserve Requirement, any Bond Reserve Fund established in connection with the 2009 Bonds with respect to the payments to be made on such upcoming date are insufficient to make such payments, the Trustee shall immediately notify the Commission, in writing, of such deficiency and direct that the Commission transfer the amount of such deficiency to the Trustee on or prior to such payment date. The Commission has covenanted and agreed to transfer to the Trustee from any Revenues in its possession the amount of such deficiency on or prior to the principal, interest or mandatory redemption date referenced in such notice. See "APPENDIX C — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE — Allocation of Sales Tax Revenues" and "— Definitions" for a more complete discussion. [No Reserve Fund Upon issuance of the 2009 Bonds, a 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund was established pursuant to the Second Supplemental Indenture for the 2009 Bonds at the 2009 Bonds Reserve Requirement. Pursuant to the Fourth Supplemental Indenture, and with the consent of the Liquidity Provider, effective on September 30, 2011 the Commission is reducing the 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund Requirement to $0. Monies released from the 2009 Bonds Reserve Fund will be transferred to the 2009 Excess Reserve Proceeds Project Fund established by the Fourth Supplemental Indenture and applied to paying a portion of the Costs of the Project.] Additional Bonds and Parity Obligations Under the Indenture, the Commission may issue other obligations payable in whole or in part from Sales Tax Revenues, subject to the limitations of the Act and to the terms and conditions contained in the Indenture. Issuance of Additional Series of Bonds. The Commission may by Supplemental Indenture establish one or more additional Series of Bonds payable from Sales Tax Revenues and secured by the pledge made under the Indenture equally and ratably with the 2009 Bonds, but only upon compliance by the Commission with the provisions of the Indenture, including the conditions that: 50429258.5 (1) No Event of Default shall have occurred and then be continuing. 21 245 (2) The aggregate principal amount of Bonds issued pursuant to the Indenture may not exceed any limitation imposed by the Act. (3) If so required in the Supplemental Indenture providing for the issuance of such Series, either (i) a Bond Reserve Fund shall be established to provide additional security for such Series of Bonds or (ii) the balance in an existing Bond Reserve Fund, forthwith upon the receipt of the proceeds of the sale of Bonds of such Series shall be increased, if necessary, to an amount at least equal to the Bond Reserve Requirement with respect to all Bonds to be considered Outstanding upon the issuance of Bonds of such Series. Said deposit may be made from the proceeds of the sale of Bonds of such Series or from other funds of the Commission or from both such sources or may be made in the form of a Reserve Facility. (4) The Commission shall place on file with the Trustee a Certificate of the Commission certifying that the amount of Sales Tax Revenues and 1988 Sales Tax Revenues collected during the Fiscal Year for which audited financial statements are available preceding the date on which such additional Series of Bonds will become Outstanding shall have been at least equal to 1.5 times Maximum Annual Debt Service on all Series of Bonds and Parity Obligations then Outstanding and the additional Series of Bonds then proposed to be issued, which Certificate shall also set forth the computations upon which such Certificate is based. Nothing in the Indenture shall prevent or be construed to prevent the Supplemental Indenture providing for the issuance of an additional Series of Bonds from pledging or otherwise providing, in addition to the security given or intended to be given by the Indenture, additional security for the benefit of such additional Series of Bonds or any portion thereof. Issuance of Refunding Bonds. Refunding Bonds may be authorized and issued by the Commission without compliance with the provisions of the Indenture described above under (4) "Issuance of Additional Series of Bonds" and other terms of the Indenture; provided, that Maximum Annual Debt Service on all Bonds and Parity Obligations Outstanding following the issuance of such Refunding Bonds is less than or equal to Maximum Annual Debt Service on all Bonds and Parity Obligations Outstanding prior to the issuance of such Refunding Bonds, or (ii) that the Commission expects a reduction in Debt Service on all Bonds Outstanding and all Parity Obligations outstanding to result from the refunding to be effected with the proceeds of such Refunding Bonds. Issuance of Parity Obligations. The Commission may also issue Parity Obligations which will have, when issued, an equal lien and charge upon the Sales Tax Revenues, provided that the conditions to the issuance of such Parity Obligations set forth in the Indenture are satisfied, including satisfaction of the coverage test described in subsection (4) above under the caption "Issuance of Additional Series of Bonds" (unless such Parity Obligations are being issued for refunding purposes, in which case the coverage test shall not apply). As defined in the Indenture, "Parity Obligations" means any indebtedness, installment sale obligation, lease obligation or other obligation of the Commission for borrowed money, the Existing Swaps or any other Interest Rate Swap Agreement (excluding fees and expenses and termination payments on Interest Rate Swap Agreements) entered into in connection with a Series of Bonds, in each case incurred in accordance with the provisions of the Indenture and 504292585 22 • 246 • • having an equal lien and charge upon the Sales Tax Revenues and therefore being payable on a parity with the Bonds (whether or not any Bonds are Outstanding). The Commission's obligation to make regularly scheduled payments under the Existing Swap Agreements (as defined below) constitutes a Parity Obligation under the Indenture. OTHER SALES TAX OBLIGATIONS 2010 Bonds On November 30, 2010, the Commission issued its $37,630,000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2010 Series A (Tax -Exempt) and $112,370,000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds) 2010 Series B (Taxable Build America Bonds). The 2010 Bonds are secured by Revenues on a parity with the 2009 Bonds. Existing Swap Agreements The Commission has entered into the following interest rate swap agreements (collectively, the "Existing Swap Agreements"), currently in the combined notional amount of $174,700,000 (subject to amortization corresponding to the amortization of the 2009 Bonds), which Existing Swap Agreements have an effective date of October 1, 2009 and expire on June I, 2029, and are designed to cause the total interest obligation with respect to the 2009 Bonds to accrue at a synthetic fixed rate: (i) An ISDA Master Agreement, dated as of August 22, 2006, between Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA") and the Commission, as supplemented by the Schedule, dated as of August 22, 2006 and the confirmation of a transaction entered into on August 22, 2006 between BofA and the Commission (the `BofA Swap Agreement"). (ii) An ISDA Master Agreement, dated as of September 24, 2008, between Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch ("DBAG") and the Commission, as supplemented by the Schedule, dated as of September 24, 2008 and the confirmation of a transaction entered into on September 24, 2008 between DBAG and the Commission (the "DBAG Swap Agreement"). The Commission's obligation to make regularly scheduled payments to the swap counterparties under the Existing Swap Agreements is secured by Sales Tax Revenues on a parity basis with the Commission's obligation to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds, including the 2009 Bonds, and therefore such obligation constitutes a Parity Obligation under the Indenture. The Commission's obligation to make any early termination payment under the Existing Swap Agreements is secured by a pledge of Sales Tax Revenues subordinate to the pledge of Sales Tax Revenues in favor of the Bonds, Parity Obligations and payment of principal of and interest on Subordinate Obligations. The BofA Swap Agreement was in the initial notional amount of $100,000,000, subject to amortization as set forth therein, which corresponds to the combined amortization of the 2009 Series B Bonds and 2009 Series C Bonds. Pursuant to this agreement, BofA has agreed to pay 50429258.5 23 247 the Commission a floating rate equal to 67% of USDLIBOR (One Month) and the Commission has agreed to pay BofA a fixed rate equal to 3.679%. The BofA Swap Agreement is subject to early termination in the event that the unenhanced ratings on the 2009 Bonds issued by Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") and Standard & Poor's Rating Service ("S&P") fall below investment grade or are withdrawn or suspended; a reduction in the long-term unsubordinated ratings of BofA below investment grade can also result in an early termination of the BofA Swap Agreement. The Commission has the option of terminating the BofA Swap Agreement upon two Business Days' notice provided it has sufficient funds to pay any early termination amount. The DBAG Swap Agreement was in the initial notional amount of $85,000,000, subject to amortization as set forth therein, which corresponds to the amortization of the 2009 Series A Bonds. Pursuant to this agreement, DBAG has agreed to pay the Commission a floating rate equal to 67% of USDLIBOR (One Month) and the Commission has agreed to pay DBAG a fixed rate equal to 3.206%. The DBAG Swap Agreement is subject to early termination in the event that the unenhanced ratings on the 2009 Bonds issued by Moody's and S&P fall below investment grade or are withdrawn or suspended; a reduction in the unenhanced ratings of the long-term unsecured unsubordinated debt of DBAG below investment grade can also result in an early termination of the DBAG Swap Agreement. The Commission has the option of terminating the DBAG Swap Agreement upon two Business Days' notice provided it has sufficient funds to pay any early termination amount. In the event of an early termination of one or both of the Existing Swap Agreements, a termination payment will be payable by either the Commission or the swap counterparty depending on the then current market value of the Existing Swap Agreement subject to termination. Any such termination payment payable by the Commission could be substantial. As of July 1, 2011, the value of the termination payment, if each of the Existing Swap Agreements were terminated based on the mid -market swap curve and assuming functioning markets was estimated by the Commission's financial advisor to be approximately $ payable by the Commission. Any early termination payments are payable from Sales Tax Revenues on a basis subordinate to the Bonds (including the 2009 Bonds). Subordinate Obligations The Commission may issue obligations ("Subordinate Obligations") payable out of Sales Tax Revenues on a basis subordinate to the payment of the principal, premium, interest and reserve fund requirements for the Bonds and all Parity Obligations, as the same become due and payable. The Commission's Sales Tax Revenue Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds) (the "Notes") and the credit agreements supporting the Notes constitute Subordinate Obligations under the Indenture. The Commission's obligation to make early termination payments under the Existing Swap Agreements is secured by a pledge of the Sales Tax Revenues subordinate to the pledge in favor of the 2009 Bonds, Parity Obligations and payment of principal of and interest on Subordinate Obligations. As of July 1, 2011, there was $0 principal amount of Notes outstanding of an authorized $120,000,000 program. The program was initially established at a maximum of $185,000,000 in principal amount and has been reduced to a maximum of $120,000,000 in principal amount. The principal of and interest on the Notes are payable from draws under an irrevocable, direct pay 50429258.5 24 • • • 248 • • letter of credit issued by Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA"), pursuant to a Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2005, as amended ("Reimbursement Agreement"), by and between the Commission and BofA. The stated amount of the letter of credit may not exceed $121,500,000. The letter of credit expires March 29, 2012, unless terminated earlier as provided in the Reimbursement Agreement. The Commission's obligation to reimburse BofA for draws under the letter of credit to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes is secured by a pledge of Sales Tax Revenues subordinate to the pledge in favor of the holders of the Bonds, including the 2009 Bonds, and on parity with the obligation to pay Note holders. If the Commission is unable to extend or replace such letter of credit by its expiration date, the Commission may refund any outstanding Notes and any related reimbursement obligations due to BofA with the proceeds of an additional Series of Bonds. See "SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE 2009 BONDS — Additional Bonds and Parity Obligations" herein. Limitation on Outstanding Sales Tax Obligations Under the Act, the Commission has the power to sell or issue, from time to time, on or before the collection of taxes, bonds or other evidence of indebtedness, including but not limited to capital appreciation bonds, in the aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of not to exceed $975 million. See "SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE 2009 BONDS — Additional Bonds and Parity Obligations" herein. THE LIQUIDITY FACILITIES General The Liquidity Provider has provided each Liquidity Facility for each of the 2009 Series A Bonds, the 2009 Series B Bonds and the 2009 Series C Bonds on the date that such 2009 Bonds were issued. Each Liquidity Facility contains various provisions, covenants and conditions, certain of which are summarized below. Certain words or terms used in the following summary are defined hereinbelow and other words or terms not defined hereinbelow are defined elsewhere in this Remarketing Memorandum, in the applicable Liquidity Facility or the Indenture, and reference thereto is made for such definitions. Each Liquidity Facility contains substantially identical terms. The following summary of each Liquidity Facility does not purport to be comprehensive or definitive and is subject to all of the terms and provisions of the Liquidity Facility to which reference is made hereby. Investors are urged to obtain and review a copy of the respective Liquidity Facility to understand all of the terms of those documents. Each Liquidity Facility requires the Liquidity Provider to provide funds for the purchase of the related 2009 Bonds that have been tendered and not remarketed subject to certain conditions described below. The Liquidity Facilities do not guarantee the payment of principal of or interest nor redemption premium, if any, on the 2009 Bonds in the event of non- payment of such interest, principal or redemption premium, if any, by the Commission. The obligation of the Liquidity Provider pursuant to the applicable Liquidity Facility to provide funds for the purchase of the related 2009 Bonds that have been tendered and not remarketed will end on the earliest of (1) September 30, 2014, as such date may be extended from time to time in accordance with the applicable Liquidity Facility, (2) the date on which no related Eligible Bonds are outstanding, (3) the close of business on the Conversion Date; 50429258.5 25 249 provided that the Liquidity Provider has paid in full the amount set forth in a notice of purchase provided to the Liquidity Provider in connection with a mandatory purchase of the related 2009 Bonds on such date, (4) the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day following the date on which the Commission and the Trustee receive a notice from the Liquidity Provider that the applicable Liquidity Facility is being terminated following certain events of default under such Liquidity Facility, or if such thirtieth (30th) day is not a Business Day, the next succeeding Business Day, and (5) the date on which the Available Commitment has been reduced to zero or terminated in its entirety at the option of the Commission or immediately and without notice following certain Special Events of Default (as defined herein) under the Liquidity Facility under the circumstances described below under the heading "Special Events of Default." The period referred to in the preceding sentence is hereinafter referred to as the "Commitment Period." Subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable Liquidity Facility, the Liquidity Provider agrees from time to time during the Commitment Period to purchase, with its own funds, related 2009 Bonds that have been tendered for purchase and not remarketed, at the Purchase Price on a purchase date. The Liquidity Provider's obligation is limited to an amount equal to the aggregate principal amount of the related 2009 Bonds then outstanding plus an amount equal to at least 34 days of interest on such outstanding 2009 Bonds calculated at 12% per annum based on a 365 -day year. The obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase the related 2009 Bonds on any date is subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions, unless waived in writing by the Liquidity Provider: (i) no Ratings Event, Special Event of Default or Suspension Event (as each is hereinafter defined) has occurred and is continuing and the Liquidity Provider's obligations under the applicable Liquidity Facility has not otherwise been terminated or suspended. If and to the extent that a Suspension Event has been cured as set forth under paragraph (2) under the heading "Remedies" below, the condition described in the applicable Liquidity Facility will be deemed satisfied; and (ii) the Liquidity Provider has timely received a notice of purchase. Ratings Event The following occurrences constitute a ratings event (each, a "Ratings Event") under each Liquidity Facility: (1) the withdrawal or suspension for a credit related reason by each Rating Agency then rating the related 2009 Bonds of the unenhanced long term rating assigned by each such Rating Agency to such 2009 Bonds or any Parity Obligations; or (2) the reduction by each Rating Agency then rating the related 2009 Bonds of the long term rating assigned to such 2009 Bonds or any Parity Obligations below Investment Grade. "Investment Grade" means "BBB-" (or its equivalent) by Fitch, "BBB-" (or its equivalent) by S&P and "Baa3" (or its equivalent) by Moody's, respectively. A withdrawal or suspension of the long term rating assigned by each such Rating Agency to the related 2009 Bonds or any Parity Obligations due to the purchase of such 2009 Bonds or Parity Obligations by the Commission does not constitute a "Ratings Event." 50429258.5 26 • 250 • • Special Events of Default The following occurrences constitute Special Events of Default (each, a "Special Event of Default") under each Liquidity Facility: (1) The Commission fails to pay when due (i) any principal or sinking fund requirement due on any related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bond prior to the commencement of the Bank Bond Amortization Period, but not including any Bank Bond during the Bank Bond Amortization Period) and (ii) any interest on any related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bond); or (2) One or more final, unappealable judgments against the Commission for the payment of money, which judgments are not covered by insurance, or which judgments are to be enforced pursuant to liens upon, or attachments against, any or all of the Sales Tax Revenues, the operation or result of which judgments, individually or in the aggregate, equal or exceed $15,000,000 and which judgments remain unpaid, undischarged, unbonded or undismissed for a period of sixty (60) days; or (3) The Commission commences a case, proceeding or other action (i) (A) under any existing or future law of any jurisdiction, domestic or foreign, relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or relief of debtors, seeking to have an order for relief entered with respect to it, or seeking to adjudicate it a bankrupt or insolvent, or seeking reorganization, arrangement, adjustment, winding -up, liquidation, dissolution, composition or other relief with respect to it, the related 2009 Bonds or the Parity Obligations, or (B) seeking appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian or other similar official for it or for all or any substantial part of its assets or for all or any substantial portion of the Sales Tax Revenues (excluding appointment of any trustee pursuant to the terms of the Indenture or the indenture relating to the Notes, and the pledges of Sales Tax Revenues thereunder), or the Commission makes a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors; or (ii) the Commission takes any action indicating its consent to, approval of, or acquiescence in, any of the acts constituting an Involuntary Insolvency Suspension Event; or (iii) the Commission admits in writing its inability to pay its debts as they become due; or (iv) the Commission becomes insolvent within the meaning of Section 101(32) of the United States Bankruptcy Code of 1978, as it may be amended from time to time, and any successor statute thereto; or (4) (i) Any provision of the Act, such Liquidity Facility, the Indenture or the related 2009 Bonds relating to (A) the payment, when due, of the principal of or interest on the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) or (B) the Sales Tax Revenues securing said 2009 Bonds will at any time and for any reason, cease to be valid and binding on the Commission, or is found or ruled to be null and void, invalid or unenforceable as the result of a final nonappealable judgment by any federal or state court or as a result of any legislative or administrative action by any Governmental Authority having jurisdiction over the Commission; or (ii) the Commission repudiates further liability or obligation (other than by reason of payment) under or with respect to any provision of the Act, such Liquidity Facility, the Indenture, the related 2009 Bonds or the Parity Obligations relating to (A) the payment, when due, of the principal of or interest on the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) or on any Parity Obligation or (B) the Sales Tax Revenues securing said 2009 Bonds and Parity Obligation; or 50429258.5 27 251 (iii) the State, acting on behalf of the Commission, has taken or permitted to be taken any official action, or has duly enacted any statute, which would materially adversely affect the enforceability of any provision of such Liquidity Facility, the related 2009 Bonds, the Act or the Indenture relating to (A) the payment, when due, of the principal of or interest on the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) or (B) the Sales Tax Revenues securing said 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds); or (iv) the Commission has taken or permitted to be taken any official action which would materially adversely affect the enforceability of any provision of such Liquidity Facility, the related 2009 Bonds, the Act, the Indenture or any Parity Obligation relating to (A) the payment, when due, of the principal of or interest on the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) or on any Parity Obligation or (B) the Sales Tax Revenues securing said 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) and Parity Obligation; or (v) a debt moratorium or comparable extraordinary restriction on repayment of principal or interest on any debt has been declared (whether or not in writing) by the Commission or imposed pursuant to a finding or ruling by a Governmental Authority with jurisdiction over the Commission with respect to the 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bond); or (5) The Commission fails to make any payment in respect of principal or interest on any Parity Obligation, issued and outstanding or to be issued, when due (i.e., whether upon said Parity Obligation's scheduled maturity, required prepayment, acceleration, upon demand or otherwise, except as such payments may be accelerated, demanded or required to be prepaid under such Liquidity Facility), and such failure continues after the applicable grace period, if any, specified in the agreement or instrument relating to such Parity Obligation. Suspension Events The following occurrences constitute suspension events (each, a "Suspension Event") under each Liquidity Facility: (l) The Commission fails to pay when due any principal payment due on any Bank Bond during the Bank Bond Amortization Period pursuant to such Liquidity Facility (a "Bank Bond Nonpayment Suspension Event"); or (2) (i) There is commenced against the Commission any case, proceeding or other action in a court of competent jurisdiction, the commencement of which results in an immediate suspension as described below in paragraph (2)(ii) under "Remedies," relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or relief of debtors, seeking to have an order for relief entered against the Commission, or seeking to adjudicate it a bankrupt or insolvent, or seeking reorganization, arrangement, adjustment, winding -up, liquidation, dissolution, composition or other relief with respect to it or the related 2009 Bonds, or seeking appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian or other similar official for it or for all or any substantial part of its assets or for all or any substantial portion of the Sales Tax Revenues, which case, proceeding or other action remains undismissed, undischarged or unbonded for sixty (60) days from the commencement of such case, proceeding or other action; or (ii) any case, proceeding or other action commenced against the Commission in a court of competent jurisdiction relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or relief of debtors, seeking to have an order for relief entered against the Commission, or seeking to adjudicate it a bankrupt or insolvent, or seeking reorganization, arrangement, adjustment, winding -up, liquidation, dissolution, composition or other relief with 50429258.5 28 • 252 • • • respect to it or the related 2009 Bonds, or seeking appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian or other similar official for it or for all or any substantial part of its assets or for all or any substantial portion of the Sales Tax Revenues, results in an order for such relief or in the appointment of a receiver or similar official (each of (i) and (ii) being an "Involuntary Insolvency Suspension Event"); or (3) There is commenced against the Commission, any case, proceeding or other action (excluding any action by the State Board of Equalization to recover its fees related to the disbursement of Sales Tax Revenues to the Commission), the commencement of which results in an immediate suspension as described below in paragraph (2)(iv) under "Remedies," by a Governmental Authority seeking issuance of a warrant of attachment, execution, distraint or similar process against all or any substantial part of its assets or for all or any substantial portion of the Sales Tax Revenues, which case, proceeding or other action is not vacated, discharged, or stayed or bonded pending appeal within sixty (60) days from the commencement thereof (a "Government Action Suspension Event"); or (4) (i) Any Governmental Authority with jurisdiction to rule on the validity or enforceability of such Liquidity Facility, the related 2009 Bonds, the Act or the Indenture finds or rules, in a judicial or administrative proceeding, that any provision of such Liquidity Facility, the related 2009 Bonds, the Act or the Indenture, as the case may be, relating to (A) the payment, when due, of the principal of or interest on the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) or (B) the Sales Tax Revenues securing said 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds), is not valid or not binding on, or enforceable against, the Commission; or (ii) the State, acting on behalf of the Commission (A) makes a claim in a judicial or administrative proceeding that the Commission has no further liability or obligation (other than by reason of payment) under such Liquidity Facility, under the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds), the Act or the Indenture to pay, when due, the principal of or interest on the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) or (B) contests in a judicial or administrative proceeding the validity or enforceability of any provision of the Liquidity Facility, the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds), the Act or the Indenture relating to or otherwise affecting (y) the payment, when due, of the principal of or interest on the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) or (z) the Sales Tax Revenues securing said 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds); or (iii) the Commission (A) makes a claim in a judicial or administrative proceeding that the Commission has no further liability or obligation (other than by reason of payment) under such Liquidity Facility, under the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds), the Act, the Indenture or any Parity Obligation to pay, when due, the principal of or interest on the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) or on any Parity Obligation or (B) contests in a judicial or administrative proceeding the validity or enforceability of any provision of such Liquidity Facility, the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds), the Act, the Indenture or any Parity Obligation relating to or otherwise affecting (y) the payment, when due, of the principal of or interest on the related 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) or on any Parity Obligation or (z) the Sales Tax Revenues securing said 2009 Bonds (including any Bank Bonds) and Parity Obligations (in all cases, a "Pending Invalidity Suspension Event"). 50429258.5 29 253 Events of Default Not Constituting a Suspension Event or a Special Event of Default The following occurrences constitute events of default (each, an "Event of Default") that do not constitute a Special Event of Default or a Suspension Event under such Liquidity Facility: (1) The Commission fails to pay when due any fee, expense or other amount payable to the Liquidity Provider under such Liquidity Facility; or (2) Any material representation or warranty made by or on behalf of the Commission in such Liquidity Facility, the Indenture or in any other Related Document (as defined in the Liquidity Facility) or in any certificate or statement delivered under said documents is incorrect or untrue in any material respect when made or deemed to have been made; or (3) The Commission defaults in the due performance or observance of any of the covenants set forth in specified sections of such Liquidity Facility; or (4) The Commission materially defaults in the due performance or observance of any other term, covenant or agreement contained in such Liquidity Facility (other than those referred to in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above), the Indenture or any other Related Document and such default remains unremedied for a period of thirty (30) days after the Commission has received notice thereof from such Liquidity Provider; provided, that, if such default cannot be remedied within such time period, such time period will be extended by the Liquidity Provider as long as the Commission is diligently pursuing the remedy therefor; or (5) Except as specified in paragraph (5) under the heading "Special Events of Default" above, any "event of default" set forth in the Indenture occurs and is continuing or any "event of default" occurs and is continuing under any other agreement between the Commission and the Liquidity Provider regarding Parity Obligations, if any. Remedies Following the occurrence of certain of the above -referenced Ratings Event, Special Events of Default, Suspension Events or other Events of Default, the Liquidity Provider may take any one or more of the following actions. Reference is made to each Liquidity Facility for a complete listing of all consequences of the above -referenced Ratings Event, Special Events of Default, Suspension Events or other Events of Default. (l) In the case of a Ratings Event or any Special Event of Default, the Available Commitment will immediately be reduced to zero, in which case, the obligations of the Liquidity Provider under the applicable Liquidity Facility (including any obligations which have been suspended pursuant to paragraph (2) below) will immediately terminate and expire without requirement of notice by the Liquidity Provider; provided, that (i) the Suspension Event described in paragraph (l) under the heading "Special Events of Default" will not qualify as a "Special Event of Default" under such Liquidity Facility if the failure to pay the principal of, or interest on, a Bank Bond is due solely to an acceleration of all of the Bank Bonds by the Liquidity Provider for any reason other than nonpayment as described in paragraph (1) under the heading "Special Events of Default" above and (ii) the Suspension Events described in paragraph (2) below will not qualify as "Special Events of Default" unless and until the conditions described in 50429258.5 30 • 254 • • • paragraph (2) below for such qualification have been satisfied. After such termination or expiration, the Liquidity Provider will deliver promptly to the Commission, the Trustee and the Remarketing Agent written notice of such termination or expiration; provided, however, that failure to provide such written notice will have no effect on the validity or enforceability of such termination or expiration. (2) In the case of a Suspension Event, the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds under such Liquidity Facility will be immediately suspended without notice or demand and, thereafter, the Liquidity Provider will be under no obligation to purchase Eligible Bonds until the Available Commitment is reinstated as described below (or is otherwise terminated or expires pursuant to the terms of such Liquidity Facility). Promptly upon the occurrence of any such Suspension Event, the Liquidity Provider will notify the Commission, the Trustee and the Remarketing Agent of such suspension and the effective date of such suspension in writing by facsimile, promptly confirmed by regular mail; provided, however, that failure to provide such written notice will have no effect on the validity or enforceability of such suspension. (i) Upon the occurrence of a Bank Bond Nonpayment Suspension Event, the Liquidity Provider's obligations to purchase Eligible Bonds will be suspended immediately and automatically and remain suspended until the Commission cures the Liquidity Provider Bond Nonpayment Suspension Event resulting in said suspension or the Final Date occurs, whichever is first. If the Commission cures the Liquidity Provider Bond Nonpayment Suspension Event prior to the Final Date, then the Available Commitment and the obligations of the Liquidity Provider under such Liquidity Facility will thereupon be reinstated (unless the Commitment Period will otherwise have been terminated, suspended or expired as provided in such Liquidity Facility). Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Commission has not cured the Liquidity Provider Bond Nonpayment Suspension Event resulting in said suspension prior to date when principal is due on such Bank Bond during the Liquidity Provider Bond Amortization Period, then the Available Commitment and the obligations of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds will terminate on the Final Date without notice or demand and, thereafter, the Liquidity Provider will be under no obligation to purchase Eligible Bonds. (ii) Upon the commencement of the case, proceeding or other action constituting an Involuntary Insolvency Suspension Event described in paragraph (2)(i) under the heading "Suspension Events" above, the Liquidity Provider's obligations to purchase Eligible Bonds will be immediately and automatically suspended and remain suspended until the case, proceeding or other action referred to therein is either dismissed, discharged or bonded within sixty (60) days from the commencement of such case, proceeding or action, or the Final Date occurs, whichever is first. In the event that said case, proceeding or other action has been dismissed, discharged or bonded within the sixty (60) day period described therein and prior to the Final Date, then the Available Commitment and the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds will be reinstated and the terms of such Liquidity Facility will continue in full force and effect as if there had been no such suspension (unless the Commitment Period will otherwise have been terminated, suspended or expired as provided in the Liquidity Facility). In the event that said case, proceeding or other action has not been dismissed, discharged or 50429258.5 31 255 bonded within such sixty (60) day period, then the Available Commitment and the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds will terminate at the close of business on such sixtieth (60th) day without notice or demand and, thereafter, the Liquidity Provider will be under no obligation to purchase Eligible Bonds. (iii) Upon the occurrence of an Involuntary Insolvency Suspension Event described in paragraph (2)(ii) under the heading "Suspension Events" above, the Liquidity Provider's obligations to purchase Eligible Bonds will be suspended immediately and automatically and remain suspended until said case, proceeding or other action referred to therein is either dismissed, discharged or bonded or the Final Date occurs, whichever is first. In the event that said Involuntary Insolvency Suspension Event has been dismissed, discharged or bonded prior to the Final Date, then the Available Commitment and the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds will be reinstated and the terms of such Liquidity Facility will continue in full force and effect as if there had been no such suspension (unless the Commitment Period will otherwise have been terminated, suspended or expired as provided in such Liquidity Facility). In the event that said Involuntary Insolvency Suspension Event has not been dismissed, discharged or bonded prior to the Final Date, then the Available Commitment and the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds will terminate on such Final Date without notice or demand and, thereafter, the Liquidity Provider will be under no obligation to purchase Eligible Bonds. (iv) Upon the commencement of the case, proceeding or other action constituting a Government Action Suspension Event, the Liquidity Provider's obligations to purchase Eligible Bonds will be immediately and automatically suspended and remain suspended until the case, proceeding or other action referred to therein is either vacated, discharged, or stayed or bonded pending appeal within sixty (60) days from the commencement of such case, proceeding or action, or the Final Date occurs, whichever is first. In the event that the case, proceeding or other action has been vacated, discharged, or stayed or bonded pending appeal within the sixty (60) day period described therein and prior to the Final Date, then the Available Commitment and the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds will be reinstated and the terms of such Liquidity Facility will continue in full force and effect as if there had been no such suspension (unless the Commitment Period will otherwise have been terminated, suspended or expired as provided in such Liquidity Facility). In the event that the case, proceeding or other action has not been vacated, discharged, or stayed or bonded pending appeal within such sixty (60) day period, then the Available Commitment and the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds will terminate at the close of business on such sixtieth (60th) day without notice or demand and, thereafter, the Liquidity Provider will be under no obligation to purchase Eligible Bonds. (v) Upon the occurrence of a Pending Invalidity Suspension Event, the Liquidity Provider's obligations to purchase Eligible Bonds will be immediately and automatically suspended and remain suspended unless and until a court with jurisdiction to rule on such a Pending Invalidity Suspension Event enters a final and nonappealable judgment that any of the material provisions of the Act or any other document described in paragraph 4(i) under the heading "Suspension Events" are not valid or not binding on, or 50429258.5 32 • • • 256 • • enforceable against, the Commission or that a claim or contest described in paragraph 4(ii) under the heading "Suspension Events" has been upheld in favor of the State, acting on behalf of the Commission, or the Commission in accordance with a final and nonappealable judgment, then, in each such case, the Available Commitment and the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds will immediately terminate without notice or demand and, thereafter, the Liquidity Provider will be under no obligation to purchase Eligible Bonds. If a court with jurisdiction to rule on such a Pending Invalidity Suspension Event finds or rules by entry of a final and nonappealable judgment that the material provision of the Act or any other document described in paragraph 4(i) under the heading "Suspension Events" is valid and binding on, or enforceable against the State, acting on behalf of the Commission, or the Commission or that the claim or contest described in paragraph 4(ii) under the heading "Suspension Events" has been dismissed pursuant to a final and nonappealable judgment, then the Available Commitment and the obligations of the Liquidity Provider under such Liquidity Facility will, in each such case, thereupon be reinstated (unless the Commitment Period will otherwise have been terminated, suspended or expired as provided in such Liquidity Facility). Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the suspension of the obligations of the Liquidity Provider pursuant to a Pending Invalidity Suspension Event remains in effect and litigation is still pending and a determination regarding same has not been dismissed or otherwise made pursuant to a final and non -appealable judgment, as the case may be, when the Final Date occurs, then the Available Commitment and the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds will terminate on the Final Date without notice or demand and, thereafter, the Liquidity Provider will be under no obligation to purchase Eligible Bonds. In the case of each Suspension Event, the Commission will cause the Trustee to subsequently notify all Bondholders of the suspension and/or termination of both the Available Commitment and the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase Eligible Bonds. (3) Upon the occurrence of a Ratings Event, Suspension Event or any Event of Default, the Liquidity Provider will have all remedies provided at law or equity, including, without limitation, specific performance; and in addition, the Liquidity Provider, in its sole discretion, may do one or more of the following: (i) declare all obligations of the Commission to the Liquidity Provider hereunder (other than payments of principal and redemption price of and interest on the Bank Bonds) to be immediately due and payable, and the same will thereupon become due and payable without demand, presentment, protest, notice of intent to accelerate, notice of acceleration or further notice of any kind, all of which are hereby expressly waived; (ii) the Liquidity Provider may give written notice of such Event of Default and termination of the Agreement (a "Notice of Termination Date") to the Trustee, the Commission and the Remarketing Agent requesting a Default Tender; provided, that the obligation of the Liquidity Provider to purchase related 2009 Bonds will terminate on the thirtieth (30th) day (or if such day is not a Business Day, the next following Business Day) after such Notice of Termination Date is received by the Trustee and, on such date, the Available Commitment will terminate and the Liquidity Provider will be under no obligation under the Liquidity Facility to purchase related 2009 Bonds; (iii) exercise any right or remedy available to it under any other provision of the Liquidity Facility; or (iv) exercise any other rights or remedies available under the Indenture and any other Related Document, any other agreement or at law or in equity; provided, further, 50429258.5 33 257 however, the Liquidity Provider will not have the right to terminate its obligation to purchase related 2009 Bonds except as provided under the heading "Remedies" hereunder. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Liquidity Facility, no failure or delay by the Liquidity Provider in exercising any right, power or privilege under the Liquidity Facility, under the Indenture and any other Related Document or under the related 2009 Bonds and no course of dealing between the Commission and the Liquidity Provider will operate as a waiver nor will any single or partial exercise preclude any other or further exercise or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege. The rights and remedies provided in such Liquidity Facility will be cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies which the Liquidity Provider would otherwise have. (4) In addition to the foregoing, upon the occurrence of a Ratings Event, Special Event of Default, Suspension Event or any Event of Default under such Liquidity Facility, all Obligations due and payable under such Liquidity Facility (including any Bank Bonds) will bear interest at the Default Rate. THE LIQUIDITY PROVIDER The Liquidity Provider is a wholly owned bank subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., a Delaware corporation whose principal office is located in New York, New York. The Liquidity Provider offers a wide range of banking services to its customers, both domestically and internationally. It is chartered and its business is subject to examination and regulation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. As of March 31, 2011, the Liquidity Provider had total assets of $1,723.5 billion, total net loans of $537.6 billion, total deposits of $1,093.0 billion, and total stockholder's equity of $123.8 billion. These figures are extracted from the Liquidity Provider's unaudited Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (the "Call Report") as of March 31, 2011, prepared in accordance with regulatory instructions that do not in all cases follow U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, which are filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Call Report, including any update to the above quarterly figures, can be found at www.fdic.gov. Additional information, including the most recent annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, of JPMorgan Chase & Co., the 2010 Annual Report of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and additional annual, quarterly and current reports filed with or furnished to the SEC by JPMorgan Chase & Co., as they become available, may be obtained without charge by each person to whom this Remarketing Memorandum is delivered upon the written request of any such person to the Office of the Secretary, JPMorgan Chase & Co., 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017 or at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. The information contained under this caption "THE LIQUIDITY PROVIDER" relates to and has been obtained from the Liquidity Provider. The delivery of this Remarketing Memorandum shall not create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Liquidity Provider since the date hereof, or that the information contained or referred to under this caption "THE LIQUIDITY PROVIDER" is correct as of any time subsequent to its date. 50429258.5 34 • 258 THE SALES TAX General The Act, among other things, authorizes the Commission to develop a countywide consensus on a proposed transaction expenditure plan to be submitted to the voters as part of an ordinance imposing a retail transactions and use tax in the County in accordance with the provisions of the California Transactions and Use Tax Law (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7251 et seq.). In accordance with the Act, on November 5, 2002, more than two-thirds of the voters of the County voting on the measure approved Measure "A," which authorized the imposition of the Sales Tax in the County. The Sales Tax commenced on July 1, 2009 and will be collected for a thirty-year period ending on June 30, 2039. The Sales Tax consists of a one- half of one percent (1/2%) sales tax on the gross receipts of retailers from the sale of tangible personal property sold in the County and a use tax at the same rate upon the storage, use or other consumption in the County of such property purchased from any retailer for storage, use or other consumption in the County, subject to certain limited exceptions described below. See "RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION — The Transportation Expenditure Plan" herein. The one-half of one percent sales tax imposed in the County for transportation purposes and administered by the Commission, is in addition to an eight and one -quarter percent sales tax levied statewide by the State of California (the "State"). In general, the statewide sales tax applies to the gross receipts of retailers from the sale of tangible personal property. The statewide use tax is imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the state of property purchased from a retailer for such storage, use or other consumption. Since the use tax does not apply to cases where the sale of the property is subject to the sales tax, the application of the use tax generally is to purchases made outside of the State for use within the State. On November 8, 1988, more than two-thirds of the voters approved the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance (the "Prior Ordinance") which authorized the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax of one-half of one percent (%2%) of the gross receipts of retailers from the sales of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the county and a use tax at the same rate upon the storage, use or other consumption in the County of such property purchased from any retailer for storage, use or other consumption in the county, subject to certain limited exceptions (the "1988 Sales Tax"). The 1988 Sales Tax ceased to be effective on June 30, 2009. The Commission has previously issued indebtedness secured by the 1988 Sales Tax, and all outstanding principal and interest with respect to such indebtedness was fully paid on or before June 1, 2009. The Sales Tax is generally imposed upon the same transactions and items subject to the sales and use tax levied statewide by the State (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "State Sales Tax"), with generally the same exceptions. Many categories of transactions are exempt from the State Sales Tax and the Sales Tax. The most important of these exemptions are: sales of food products for home consumption, prescription medicine, edible livestock and their feed, seed and fertilizer used in raising food for human consumption, and gas, electricity and water when delivered to consumers through mains, lines and pipes. In addition, "Occasional Sales" (i.e., sales of property not held or used by a seller in the course of activities for which he or she is 50429258.5 35 259 required to hold a seller's permit) are generally exempt from the State Sales Tax and from the Sales Tax; however, the "Occasional Sales" exemption does not apply to the sale of an entire business and other sales of machinery and equipment used in a business. Sales of property to be used outside the county which are shipped to a point outside the county, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee, at such point, are exempt from the State Sales Tax and from the Sales Tax. Action by the State Legislature or by voter initiative could change the transactions and items upon which the State Sales Tax and the Sales Tax are imposed. Such changes or amendments could have either an adverse or beneficial effect on Sales Tax Revenues. The Commission is not currently aware of any proposed legislative change which would have a material adverse effect on Sales Tax Revenues. See also "RISK FACTORS — Proposition 218" herein. Collection of Sales Tax Revenues Collection of the Sales Tax is administered by the Board of Equalization. The Commission and the Board of Equalization have entered into an agreement for state administration of district transactions and use taxes to authorize payment of Sales Tax Revenues directly to the Trustee. The Board of Equalization, after deducting amounts payable to itself, is required to remit the balance of amounts received from the Sales Tax directly to the Trustee. The Trustee is required to apply the Sales Tax Revenues to make deposits to the funds and accounts established under the Indenture and to transfer the remaining amounts to U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as issuing and paying agent for the Notes (the "Issuing and Paying Agent"). See "SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE 2009 BONDS" herein. The remaining unapplied Sales Tax Revenues, if any, are transferred to the Commission for use for any purpose contemplated by the Ordinance. The fee that the Board of Equalization is authorized to charge for collection of the Sales Tax is determined by State legislation. The Board of Equalization fee for collection of the Sales Tax for fiscal year 2011-12 is estimated at $1,316,800. Historical Sales Tax Revenues The following table sets forth net sales tax revenues for the Fiscal Years indicated below. Net sales tax revenues through a portion of 2010 were received under the Prior Ordinance and were levied by the Commission at the same rate and on the same types of transactions as the Sales Tax. 50429258.5 36 • 260 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HISTORICAL SALES TAX REVENUES Fiscal Year Net Sales % Change Ended June 30 Tax Revenues(') From Prior Fiscal Year 2001 $ 89,710,797 2002 95,782,282 6.77% 2003 102,442,647 6.95 2004 120,564,890 17.69 2005 138,921,247 15.23 2006 157,236,314 13.18 2007 154,539,723 (1.71) 2008 142,537,548 (7.77) 2009 119,688,289 (16.03) 2010 114,526,253 (4.31) 0) Net of Board of Equalization administrative fee. Source: The Commission. Annual Sales Tax Revenues for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2010 were $114,526,253, representing a decline of 4.31% from the Sales Tax Revenues for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2009. Year over year quarterly increases on a percentage basis for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2011 were 2.25% for the first quarter, 5.06% for the second quarter, 8.07% for the third quarter and 7.42% through ten months. See "APPENDIX B — COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION" and "RISK FACTORS" herein. The Commission is unable to predict the amount of Sales Tax Revenues it will receive in the future. For a summary of historical taxable retail sales within the County, see the table entitled "County of Riverside, Taxable Sales Transactions" in "APPENDIX B — COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION." The following table sets forth the Maximum Annual Debt Service coverage on the Bonds based on Sales Tax Revenues for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2010. 2010 Maximum Annual Sales Tax Revenues $114,526,253 Debt Service on all BondsW'W Coverage Ratio $20,721,338 5.53x °) Interest on variable rate debt is calculated assuming the interest rates are equal to the fixed rates on the Existing Swaps. Under the Indenture, the federal subsidy payments to be received in connection with the 2010 Bonds are treated as an off -set to Debt Service. "See DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE" herein. Source: The Commission and Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates. 50429258.5 37 261 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION General The Commission is charged with a number of important responsibilities in serving the residents of the County. Administering the sales tax program, which has raised more than $1 billion, has been by far the most prominent of these responsibilities. The Commission, which has the responsibility of placing future transportation ballot measures before the public, was successful in November 2002 in obtaining more than two-thirds voter approval of the Sales Tax. In addition to the Commission's Measure A responsibilities, the Commission has also been designated as the congestion management agency (the "CMA") for the County. As the CMA, the Commission has developed a congestion management program that more effectively utilizes transportation funds by linking land use, transportation and air quality efforts. The Commission serves as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies and operates the freeway service patrol (the "FSP") for the County. The results of these programs — 614 call boxes along the County roadways and 22 FSP tow trucks providing assistance to more than 48,300 motorists annually — are among the most visible of the Commission's programs. In 1998, the State Legislature gave new authority to the Commission by changing the way funding is distributed from the State Transportation Improvement Program, which is funded through state and federal gas taxes. In simple terms, counties no longer apply to the State for funding their most urgent transportation needs. Instead, State transportation dollars are given directly as an entitlement, leaving the decision making about transportation spending up to the designated county transportation commission like the Commission. While this gives the Commission greater control over how transportation dollars are spent, it also requires a much higher level of local communication and participation to determine how these dollars are spent throughout a county with so many transportation needs. The Commission has the responsibility to program funds received under the California Transportation Development Act, a statewide source of funding for transit purposes, primarily to the County's major public transit providers, although the Commission has no responsibility to provide transit services. The Transportation Expenditure Plan On November 5, 2002, 69.2% of the voters of the County approved Measure "A" — The Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan (the "Plan") and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance which expressed the following concerns in its preamble: "The transportation system in Riverside County is rapidly deteriorating and our population and economy are growing rapidly. Maintenance and repairs of existing roadways and improvements to relieve congestion cannot be accomplished with available funds. Without additional funds, the system will bog down and pavement will crumble into permanent disrepair.... Local governments must either generate revenues to expand our system and maintain our investments or watch the system collapse and endanger the health, welfare and safety of all Riverside County residents." 50429258.5 38 • • • 262 • • • The goals of the Plan are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) Maintain and improve the quality of life in Riverside County by supplementing existing funds for transportation; provide for accountability in the expenditure of taxpayer funds; provide for equity in the distribution of Measure "A" Revenues; and provide for local control of the Transportation Improvement Program. To address the concerns as expressed in the preamble, and to accomplish its goals and policies, the ordinance provided that sales tax revenues be distributed to the specific geographic areas of Riverside County (i.e., Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley) based on their proportionate share of revenues generated in the County, and that funds be allocated for highway and regional arterial projects, local streets and roads, transit and commuter rail, new corridors and economic development. In the Western County, $370 million is to be used for new corridor projects, $1.020 billion for highway projects, $300 million for regional arterial projects, $390 million for public transit, $970 million for local street and road improvements, $270 million for bond financing costs, and the remaining $40 million for economic development projects. In the Coachella Valley, fifty percent is to be earmarked for its highway and regional arterial system, thirty-five percent for local streets and roads, and the remaining fifteen percent for transit. All Palo Verde Valley funds are designated for the maintenance of local streets and roads. Toll Road Bonds On July 14, 2010, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-026 authorizing the issuance and sale of not to exceed $900 million principal amount of toll revenue bonds. The proceeds of the toll revenue bonds will be applied to finance certain State Route 91 corridor improvement project costs through a design -build method of delivery. The Commission expects to secure the toll revenue bonds by a first lien on toll revenues and possibly by a subordinate pledge of Sales Tax Revenues. Bonds secured by toll revenues and by a subordinate pledge of Sales Tax Revenues are not, in the Commission's view, subject to the Ordinance's limit on the total principal amount of bonds secured solely by Sales Tax Revenues. See "OTHER SALES TAX OBLIGATIONS - Limitation on Outstanding Sales Tax Obligations" herein. Commissioners Section 130053 of the California Public Utilities Code specifies that the Commission consists of five members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, one member from each incorporated city in Riverside County (each of whom must be a mayor or member of the City Council) and one non -voting member appointed by the governor of the State. The role of the Commission is to act as the policy -making board for Riverside County transportation activities. 50429258.5 39 263 Executive Staff The Commission's key staff members, the position held by each and a brief statement of the background of each staff member are set forth below. Anne Mayer, Executive Director. Anne Mayer was appointed in October 2007 as the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission. She is responsible for overall management of the Commission including execution of operational policies and procedures and all personnel decisions. Ms. Mayer joined the Commission in May 2005 as Deputy Executive Director. Prior to joining the Commission, she was the District 8 Director for the California Department of Transportation ("CALTRANS"). As District Director, she was responsible for management of the state highway system in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. With 28 years of experience in the public works field, Ms. Mayer was with CALTRANS for 14 of those years. Ms. Mayer holds a civil engineering degree from Michigan State University. John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director. In January 2008, John Standiford was appointed as Deputy Executive Director for the Commission, he joined the Commission in 1999 and was the Public Affairs Director prior to his current appointment. Mr. Standiford also served as the Manager of Government and Media Relations for the Orange County Transportation Authority, where he worked for more than seven years. Earlier in his career, Mr. Standiford worked for three state legislators from the Los Angeles area. He received his bachelor and masters degrees from the University of California, Irvine. Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Trevino joined the Commission as the Chief Financial Officer in January 2004. Ms. Trevino previously worked as Manager of Accounting and Financial Reporting for the Orange County Transportation Authority. She also served as an adjunct professor for governmental accounting and reporting at the University of Redlands. Ms. Trevino's 19 -year public accounting career included 16 years with Ernst & Young LLP. As Senior Manager in its Assurance and Advisory Business Services practice serving government clients, she led the development of the Southern California practice and served as a national technical resource. She is a Certified Public Accountant in California and completed the Executive Management Program at the University of California, Riverside. Ms. Trevino received a bachelor of science degree in accounting from Loyola Marymount University with Magna Cum Laude Honors. RISK FACTORS Economic Recession and Financial Crisis The amount of Sales Tax Revenues collected at any time is directly dependent upon the level of retail sales within the County. The County has recently been in a recession, as evidenced by a high unemployment rate, a decrease in total personal income and taxable sales, a drop in residential and commercial building permits, a decline in the rate of home sales and the median price of single-family homes and condominiums, an increase in notices of default on mortgage loans secured by homes and condominiums and an increase in foreclosures resulting from such defaults. While recent quarterly data indicate that Sales Tax Revenues may be recovering from recent declines, a further deterioration in economic activity within the County 50429258.5 40 • 264 • • • could have a material adverse impact upon the level of Sales Tax Revenues generated. For information relating to current economic conditions within the County and the State, see "APPENDIX B — COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION." Investments The Commission has significant holdings in a broad range of investments. Market fluctuations have affected and will continue to affect materially the value of those investments and those fluctuations may be and historically have been material. Recent market disruptions have exacerbated the market fluctuations, but as a result of stable investments in government securities, the Commission's portfolio has not suffered any major losses with respect to the principal amount of funds invested. The Commission has experienced a reduction in interest income on such investments as a result of current market conditions. Limitations of the Liquidity Facilities The ability to obtain funds under a Liquidity Facility in accordance with its terms may be limited by federal or State law. Bankruptcy, conservatorship, receivership and similar laws governing financial institutions or any issuer of a Liquidity Facility may prevent or restrict payment under such Liquidity Facility. To the extent the short-term rating on any Series of the 2009 Bonds depends in any manner on the rating of the Liquidity Provider, the short-term ratings on such Series of 2009 Bonds could be downgraded or withdrawn if the Liquidity Provider were to be downgraded, placed on credit watch or have its ratings suspended or withdrawn or were to refuse to perform under its Liquidity Facility. The obligation of the Liquidity Providers under each Liquidity Facility to purchase unremarketed 2009 Bonds of a Series is subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, and is also subject to all rights and defenses available to contracting parties generally. The Liquidity Facilities are not a guaranty to pay the purchase price of any Series of 2009 Bonds tendered for purchase. Each Liquidity Facility is a general contract, subject to certain conditions and limitations, and is not a letter of credit. Purchasers of any 2009 Bonds should consult their legal counsel for an explanation of the differences between a general contract and a letter of credit or guaranty. The following is included as a summary of selected differences and does not purport to be complete or definitive. In general, a letter of credit is an independent, special contract by a bank to pay a third party such as a bond trustee holding the letter of credit for the benefit of owners of such bonds. Banks are required by law to honor their letters of credit except in specified circumstances. If a dispute were to develop between a bank and its borrower, except in limited circumstances, the dispute should not jeopardize payment under the letter of credit because (a) the letter of credit would be independent of the disputed contract between the borrower and the bank and (b) the beneficiary of the letter of credit (typically, the bond trustee) would have direct rights under the letter of credit. Further, and although there are defenses to payment of letters of credit, such defenses are limited by law to specified circumstances. In contrast, a standby bond purchase agreement, such as the Liquidity Facility, is merely a general contract. No law expressly requires performance of the contract, although the non - 50429258.5 41 265 breaching party would be entitled to allowable damages if there were a breach of contract. Although the Trustee is authorized to draw funds in accordance with each Liquidity Facility, the Liquidity Provider has no independent obligation to the Trustee. If a dispute were to develop, the Liquidity Provider will have all defenses allowed at law or in equity to their payment under or other performance of the Liquidity Facility, including but not limited to disputes (whether valid or not) regarding the authority of any party to enter into or perform under the Liquidity Facility. In general, the provider of a standby bond purchase agreement has more defenses against performance than the provider of a letter of credit. A Liquidity Provider or the Commission may seek to have any future dispute resolved in court and appealed to final judgment before it performs under the applicable Liquidity Facility. Further, even if the Commission were to prevail against the Liquidity Provider, a court would not necessarily order the Liquidity Provider to perform under the applicable Liquidity Facility; it could instead award damages for breach of contract to the Commission. Any such award would not necessarily be in an amount sufficient to pay the purchase price of the applicable Series of 2009 Bonds. No Acceleration Provision except for Liquidity Facility Bonds The Indenture does not contain a provision allowing for acceleration of the 2009 Bonds in the event of a default in the payment of principal of and interest on the 2009 Bonds when due; however, Liquidity Facility Bonds are subject to acceleration as set forth in the Liquidity Facility. Upon a default by the Commission, each Holder of a 2009 Bond will have the rights to exercise the remedies set forth in the Indenture, subject to the limitations thereon. See "APPENDIX C — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE." The Sales Tax With limited exceptions, the Sales Tax will be imposed upon the same transactions and items subject to the sales tax levied statewide by the State. The State Legislature or the voters within the State, through the initiative process, could change or limit the transactions and items upon which the statewide sales tax and the Sales Tax are imposed. Any such change or limitation could have an adverse impact on the Sales Tax Revenues collected. For a further description of the Sales Tax, see "THE SALES TAX." Impact of Bankruptcy of the Commission As a municipal entity, the Commission may be qualified to file a petition under Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code ("Chapter 9") under certain circumstances. Under Chapter 9, the pledge of Sales Tax Revenues is fully enforceable only if a bankruptcy court determines that the Sales Tax Revenues are "Special Revenues" under Chapter 9 and that the pledge is valid and binding under Chapter 9. Sales Tax Revenues may not constitute "Special Revenues" under Chapter 9 because, among other reasons, the Sales Tax was not levied for a particular project and is available for the general purposes of the Commission. If a bankruptcy court were to hold the pledge of Sales Tax Revenues to be unenforceable under Chapter 9, then the owners of the Bonds (including the 2009 Bonds) would no longer be entitled to any special priority to the Sales 50429258.5 42 • • • 266 • • • Tax Revenues and may be treated as general unsecured creditors of the Commission as to the Sales Tax Revenues. Furthermore, since the obligations of the Commission under the Indenture, including its obligation to pay principal of and interest on the 2009 Series Bonds, are limited obligations and are payable solely from Sales Tax Revenues and certain other amounts held by the Trustee under the Indenture, if the Commission filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 9, the owners of the Bonds (including the 2009 Bonds) would have no recourse to any assets or revenues of the Commission other than Sales Tax Revenues and such other amounts. Proposition 218 On November 5, 1996, voters in the State approved an initiative known as the Right to Vote on Taxes Act ("Proposition 218"). Proposition 218 added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. Article XIIIC requires majority voter approval for the imposition, extension or increase of general taxes and two-thirds voter approval for the imposition, extension or increase of special taxes by a local government, which is defined to include local or regional governmental agencies such as the Commission. The Sales Tax was approved by more than two-thirds of the voters in Riverside County and is therefore in compliance with the requirements of Proposition 218. Article XIIIC also removes limitations that may have applied to the voter initiative power with regard to reducing or repealing previously authorized local taxes, even previously voter -approved taxes like the Sales Tax. In the view of the Commission, however, any attempt by the voters to use the initiative provisions of Proposition 218 to rescind or reduce the levy and collection of the Sales Tax in a manner which would prevent the payment of debt service on the 2009 Bonds, would violate the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution and, accordingly, would be precluded. The interpretation and application of Proposition 218 will ultimately be determined by the courts. Further Initiatives Proposition 218 was adopted as a measure that qualified for the ballot pursuant to California's initiative process. From time to time other initiative measures could be adopted, which may affect the Commission's ability to levy and collect the Sales Tax, or change the types of transactions or items subject to a Sales Tax. Loss of Tax Exemption As discussed under "TAX MATTERS," interest on the 2009 Bonds could become includable in federal gross income, possibly from the date of issuance of the 2009 Bonds, as a result of acts or omissions of the Commission subsequent to the issuance of the 2009 Bonds. Should interest become includable in federal gross income, the 2009 Bonds are not subject to mandatory redemption by reason thereof and may remain outstanding until maturity. Loss of Subsidy Payments The 2010 Series B Bonds were issued as "Build America Bonds" or "Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds." The amount of any Subsidy Payments to be received in connection with the 2010 Series B Bonds are subject to legislative changes by the United States 50429258.5 43 267 Congress. Further, Subsidy Payments will only be paid if the 2010 Series B Bonds continue to qualify as Build America Bonds or Recovery Zone Bonds. For the 2010 Series B Bonds to be and remain Build America Bonds or Recovery Zone Bonds, the Commission must comply with certain covenants and establish certain facts and expectations with respect to the 2010 Series B Bonds, the use and investment of proceeds thereof and the use of property financed thereby. Thus, it is possible that the Commission may not receive the Subsidy Payments. Subsidy Payments are also subject to offset against amounts that may, for unrelated reasons, be owed by the Commission to any agency of the United States of America. The Commission does not believe that failure to receive the Subsidy Payments or any offset to the Subsidy Payments will materially and adversely impact the Commission's ability to pay interest on the 2010 Series B Bonds. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The financial statements of the Commission for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2010, included in APPENDIX A of this Remarketing Memorandum, have been audited by McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, certified public accountants, as stated in their report therein. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, has not been engaged to perform, and has not performed, since the date of its report included in APPENDIX A, any procedures on the financial statements addressed in that report. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, also has not performed any procedures relating to this Remarketing Memorandum. LITIGATION There is not now pending any litigation questioning or affecting the validity of the 2009 Bonds or the proceedings and authority under which they were issued. Neither the creation, organization or existence of the Commission, nor the title of the present members of the Commission to their respective offices, is being contested. TAX MATTERS [TO BE UPDATED] On the date of original issuance and delivery of the 2009 Bonds, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, rendered its opinion that based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings, and court decisions, interest on the 2009 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from State personal income taxes. A complete copy of such opinion is attached as APPENDIX E hereto. Such opinion will not be updated in connection with the remarketing of the 2009 Bonds hereunder. CERTAIN LEGAL MATTERS On the original date of execution and delivery of the 2009 Bonds, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, rendered its opinion as to the validity and enforceability of the 2009 Bonds. The opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP has not been updated as of the date of this Remarketing Memorandum. A complete copy of the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP delivered in connection with the original issuance of the 2009 Bonds is attached as 50429258.5 44 • • 268 • • • APPENDIX E hereto. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is serving as Bond Counsel to the Commission. Bond Counsel undertakes no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or fairness of this Remarketing Memorandum. Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. is serving as Disclosure Counsel to the Commission. RATINGS Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Standard & Poor's Ratings Group, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. and Fitch Ratings have assigned each Series of the 2009 Bonds the long-term municipal bond credit ratings of "Aal," "AA+" and "AA," respectively, and the short-term ratings of "VMIG-I," "A -I+" and "F-1+," respectively, based on the Liquidity Facilities. Each such rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating. Such ratings reflect only the views of such organizations and any desired explanation of the significance of such ratings should be obtained from the rating agency furnishing the same. The ratings described above do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell or hold the 2009 Bonds. The Commission has furnished to the rating agencies certain information respecting the 2009 Bonds and the Commission. Generally, rating agencies base their ratings on such information and materials and their own investigations, studies and assumptions. The ratings are subject to revision, suspension or withdrawal at any time by the rating agencies, and there is no assurance that the ratings will continue for any period of time or that they will not be lowered or withdrawn. The Commission and the Remarketing Agents undertake no responsibility to oppose any such revision, suspension or withdrawal. Any downward revision, suspension or withdrawal of any rating may have an adverse effect on the market price of the 2009 Bonds or the ability to remarket the 2009 Bonds. REMARKETING AGENTS Barclays Capital Inc. is serving as Remarketing Agent for the 2009 Series A Bonds. De La Rosa & Co. is serving as Remarketing Agent for the 2009 Series B Bonds. Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC is serving as Remarketing Agent for the 2009 Series C Bonds. Each Remarketing Agent carries out the duties and obligations provided for such Remarketing Agent under and in accordance with the provisions of the Indenture and the related Remarketing Agreement, each dated as of October 1, 2009, by and between the Commission and the applicable Remarketing Agent. See "SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE 2009 BONDS SUBJECT TO OPTIONAL TENDER AND REMARKETING" herein. FINANCIAL ADVISOR The Commission has retained Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates, Irvine, California, as Financial Advisor in connection with the remarketing of the 2009 Bonds. The Financial Advisor is not obligated to undertake, and has not undertaken to make, an independent verification or assume responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the information contained in this Remarketing Memorandum. The Financial Advisor is an independent financial advisory firm and is not engaged in the business of underwriting, trading or distributing municipal securities or other public securities. 50429258.5 45 269 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE The Commission has executed the Continuing Disclosure Agreement and agreed therein for the benefit of the beneficial owners of the 2009 Bonds to provide certain financial information and operating data relating to the Commission and the Sales Tax by not later than nine months after the end of the Commission's prior fiscal year (the "Annual Reports"), and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain enumerated events (the "Listed Events"). The Annual Reports and notices of Listed Events will be filed with the MSRB. See "APPENDIX G — FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING." MISCELLANEOUS The references herein to the Act and the Indenture are brief outlines of certain provisions thereof. Such outlines do not purport to be complete and for full and complete statements of such provisions reference is made to said documents or the Act, as the case may be. Copies of the documents mentioned under this heading are available for inspection at the Commission and following delivery of the 2009 Bonds will be on file at the offices of the Trustee in Los Angeles, California. References are made herein to certain documents and reports which are brief summaries thereof which do not purport to be complete or definitive. Reference is made to such documents and reports for full and complete statements of the content thereof. Any statement in this Remarketing Memorandum involving matters of opinion, whether or not expressly so stated, are intended as such and not as representations of fact. This Remarketing Memorandum is not to be construed as a contract or agreement between the Commission and the purchasers or Holders of any of the 2009 Bonds. The execution and delivery of this Remarketing Memorandum has been duly authorized by the Commission. 50429258.5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: /s/ Anne Mayer Executive Director 46 • • 270 • • • 50429258.5 APPENDIX A COMMISSION AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010 A-1 271 0 • • 272 • • APPENDIX B COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION Set forth below is certain demographic and economic information with respect to the County of Riverside, California (the "County"). Such information is provided as general information and has been obtained from sources that the Commission believes to be reliable, but the Commission makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of the information included. The weakness of the economy at the County, State and national levels may not be reflected in the data presented below, as more recent information has not been made available to the Commission. Population According to the State Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, the County's population was estimated at 2,217,778 as of January 1, 2011, representing an approximately 1% increase over the County's population as estimated by the 2010 Census, following an increase of approximately 42% over the prior decade. For the eleven year period of January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2011, the County's population grew by over 600,000, ranking it as one of the major growth areas in the nation. During this period, nine cities and the unincorporated County area each grew by over 20,000 persons. The largest population increase was in Murrieta, which added over 59,000 to its population. This is followed by Riverside, Temecula, Moreno Valley, Indio, Corona, Beaumont, Lake Elsinore and La Quinta. The City of Beaumont experienced the most rapid growth rate. Several areas in the unincorporated County also grew rapidly. These include Eastvale (which incorporated in 2010), Temescal Canyon, the El Sobrante/Lake Matthews/Woodcrest area, Winchester, French Valley, and the unincorporated area north of Indio. Much of the growth in the City of Menifee occurred during this period while it was an unincorporated area. Currently, the growth in the County has tempered due to the economy. Between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011, the County population increased by approximately 1%, a rate close to the statewide average. 50429258.5 B-1 273 • • • 274 • S The following table sets forth annual population figures as of January 1 of each year for cities located within the County for each of the years listed: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE POPULATION OF CITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY (As of January 1) CITY 2000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Banning 23,562 28,174 28,]48 28,457 29,507 29,844 Beaumont 11,384 28,209 31,317 32,403 36,496 38,195 Blythe 20,465 22,608 21,627 21,329 20,873 20,158 Calimesa 7,139 7,435 7,423 7,498 7,853 7,941 Canyon Lake 9,952 10,955 10,994 11,128 10,528 10,647 Cathedral City 42,647 52,045 51,972 52,447 51,037 51,603 Coachella 22,724 38,437 40,317 41,000 40,464 41,502 Corona 124,966 145,847 146,698 148,597 151,854 153,649 Desert Hot Springs 16,582 24,856 25,939 26,552 25,852 27,383 Eastvale - - 54,303 Hemet 58,812 72,537 73,205 74,361 78,335 79,607 Indian Wells 3,816 4,934 5,000 5,093 4,941 5,010 Indio 49,116 77,046 80,962 82,230 75,122 77,165 Lake Elsinore 28,930 47,568 49,556 50,267 51,445 52,503 La Quinta 23,694 41,039 42,743 43,778 37,307 37,836 Menifee - 67,705 77,267 79,444 Moreno Valley 142,379 180,228 182,945 186,301 192,654 195,216 Murrieta 44,282 97,031 99,576 100,714 103,085 104,459 Norco 24,157 27,329 27,143 27,160 27,066 27,060 Palm Desert 41,155 49,717 50,686 51,509 48,132 49,111 Palm Springs 42,805 46,796 47,019 47,601 44,385 45,002 Perris 36,189 50,597 53,340 54,323 67,879 69,781 Rancho Mirage 13,249 16,923 16,975 17,180 17,168 17,463 Riverside 255,166 291,812 296,191 300,430 302,814 306,779 San Jacinto 23,779 34,297 35,491 36,477 44,043 44,597 Temecula 57,716 97,141 99,873 102,604 99,611 101.657 Wildomar - - - 31,321 32.006 32,543 TOTALS Incorporated 1,124,666 1,493,561 1,525,140 1,648,465 1,677,724 1,760,458 Unincorporated 420,721 536,754 553.461 459,188 501,968(1) 457,320 County -Wide 1,545,387 2 ,_024,3_15 2.078,601 2,107,653 2.179.692 2.217.778 California 33,873,086 37,472,074 37,883,992 38,292,687 37,223,900 37,510,766 Source: U.S. Census Bureau for 2000, State Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit (with 2000 DRU Benchmark) for 2007-2009. (1) Includes the City of Eastvale, which was incorporated in October 2010. 50429258.5 B-2 275 p Industry and Employment The County is a part of the Riverside -San Bernardino Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area ("PMSA"), which includes all of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The following table sets forth the annual average employment by industry for the PMSA. RIVERSIDE -SAN BERNARDINO-ONTARIO PMSA ANNUAL AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY(') (In Thousands) INDUSTRY 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Agriculture 17.2 16.8 15.9 14.9 14.8 Construction 129.5 112.8 90.7 67.9 59.5 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 51.8 50.1 46.7 42.5 41.1 Government 224.2 225.7 229.9 228.4 224.3 Manufacturing: 124.0 118.9 106.9 88.8 84.6 Nondurables 36.4 36.4 34.3 30.6 29.6 Durables 87.6 82.5 72.5 58.1 55.5 Natural Resources and Mining 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 Retail Trade 171.5 175.4 168.6 156.2 154.6 Prof., Educ. and other Services 436.2 446.3 440.7 419.0 414.9 Trans., Whse. and Utilities 63.8 66.7 70.2 66.8 66.5 Wholesale Trade 53.8 56.4 54.1 48.9 48.8 Information, Pub. and Telecom. 15.7 15.2 14.9 15.1 15.9 Total, All Industries 1,288.4 1,285.5 1,239.7 1,149.7 1,126.0 Source: State Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. (U The employment figures by Industry which are shown above are not directly comparable to the "Total, All Industries" employment figures due to rounded data. 50429258 5 B-3 • • 276 • The following table sets forth an employment data comparison by industry for the period May 2010 and May 2011. RIVERSIDE -SAN BERNARDINO-ONTARIO PMSA EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY FOR MAY 2010 AND MAY 2011(1) INDUSTRY May 2010 May 2011 Change Total Farm 15,200 16,100 900 Total Nonfarm 1,125,700 1,108,800 (16,900) Natural Resources 1,100 1,000 (100) Construction 61,300 56,000 (5,300) Manufacturing 85,100 84,100 (1,000) Trade, Transportation & Utilities 269,300 270,500 1,200 Information 16,000 16,100 100 Financial Advisor 41,100 42,600 1,500 Professional & Business Services 120,600 119,800 (800) Educational & Health Services 133,700 136,200 2,500 Leisure & Hospitality 124,100 121,900 (2,200) Other Services 38,700 36,700 (2,000) Government 234,700 223,900 (10,800) Total All Industries 1,140,900 1,124,900 (16,000) Source: State Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. (I) Data not adjusted for seasonality. The employment figures by Industry which are shown above are not directly comparable to the "Total, All Industries" employment figures due to rounded data. 50429258.5 B-4 277 (I) (2) The following table sets forth certain of the ten major employers located in the County as of 2010: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CERTAIN MAJOR EMPLOYERS(') (2010) Company Name County of Riverside March Air Reserve Base University of California, Riverside Stater Brothers Markets Wal-Mart Riverside Unified School District Abbott Vascular Pechanga Resort & Casino Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Temecula Valley Unified School District Source: The Business Press 2010 Book of Lists. Certain major employers in the County may have been excluded because of the data collection methodology used by The Business Press. Includes employees within the County; includes, under certain circumstances, temporary, seasonal and per diem employees. Product/Service County Government Government/Military Education Institution Supermarket Retailer Retail Store School District Medical & Biotech Manufacturer Casino/Resort Healthcare School District No. of Local Employees(2) 18,456 8,600 7,321 6,900 6,550 5,099 4,500 4,000 3,600 2,752 Unemployment statistics for the County, the State and the United States are set forth in the following table. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE AND NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT DATA County) ) California(') United States May 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 5.0% 6.0% 8.5% 13.6% 14.7% 13.3%(2) 4.9 5.3 7.2 1 1.4 12.4 I 1.4(2) 4.6 4.6 5.8 9.3 9.6 9.1(3) Source: State of California Employment Development Department Labor Market Information Division; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data are not seasonally adjusted. The unemployment data for the County and the Sate is calculated using unrounded data. Preliminary. Data are seasonally adjusted. 50429258.5 B-5 • 411 • 278 • • Commercial Activity Commercial activity is an important factor in the County's economy. Much of the County's commercial activity is concentrated in central business districts or small neighborhood commercial centers in cities. There are five regional shopping malls in the County: Galleria at Tyler (Riverside), Hemet Valley Mall, Westfield Palm Desert Shopping Center, Moreno Valley Mall, and The Promenade in Temecula. There are also two factory outlet malls (Desert Hills Factory Stores and Lake Elsinore Outlet Center) and over 200 area centers in the County. Taxable Sales Transactions The following tables set forth taxable transactions in the County for the years 2005 through 2008. Annual figures for 2009 are set forth in a separate table, as the reporting categories were revised in the year 2009. Types of Business COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TAXABLE SALES TRANSACTIONS (In Thousands) 2005 2006 2007 2008 Apparel Stores Group $ 990,129 $ 1,080,385 $ 1,171,013 $ 1,121,543 General Merchandise Group 3,304,474 3,553,554 3,593,134 3,389,936 Specialty Stores Group 2,104,040 2,262,442 -"(') --(1) Food Stores Group 1,197,438 1,309,782 1,352,609 1,254,366 Eating and Drinking Group 2,157,801 2,316,422 2,388,039 2,340,554 Household Group 964,629 948,217 843,945 816,379 Building Materials Group 2,424,898 2,390,236 1,961,911 1,435,337 Automotive Group 6,751,648 6,956,756 7,137,075 6,126,512 All Other Retail Stores Group° 944,155 1,024,551 2,794,790 2,204,621 Retail Stores Total $20,839,212 $21,842,345 $21,242,516 $18,689,249 Business and Personal Services 1,118,570 1,151,861 1,112,407 1,045,714 All Other Outlets 6,298,709 6,822,031 6,668,686 6,268,632 Total All Outlets $28,256,491 $29,816,237 $29,023,609 $26,003,595 (I) All Other Retail Stores Group includes Specialty Stores Group for 2007 and 2008. Source: California State Board of Equalization, Research and Statistics Division. 50429258.5 B-6 279 50429258.5 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 2009 TAXABLE SALES TRANSACTIONS(') (In Thousands) Types of Business 2009 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $ 2,449,747 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 381,643 Electronics and Appliance Stores 476,455 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 1,237,518 Food and Beverage Stores 1,251,220 Health and Personal Care Stores 389,620 Gasoline Stations 2,300,247 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 1,293,271 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores 411,301 General Merchandise Stores 2,855,733 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 641,954 Nonstore Retailers 101,925 Food Services and Drinking Places 2,266,853 Total Retail and Food Services 16,057,488 All Other Outlets 6,170,390 Total All Outlets $22,227,877 (1) The taxable transaction figures by industry which are shown above may not be directly comparable to the "Total, All Outlets" figures due to rounded data. The categories for "Types of Business" are different from those in the prior table which sets forth taxable transactions in the County for the years 2004 through 2008. Source: California State Board of Equalization, Research and Statistics Division. B-7 411 • • 280 • • • The following table sets forth taxable transactions in the County for first quarter of 2010. The figures for the remaining three quarters of 2010 and figures for 2011 are currently unavailable. 50429258.5 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 2010 TAXABLE SALES TRANSACTIONS(') (In Thousands) Type of Business First Quarter Motor Vehicle and Parts $ 612,104 Furniture and home Furnishings 102,624 Electronics and Appliances 113,343 Bldg. and Garden Materials and Supplies 308,977 Food and Beverage Stores 305,333 Health and Personal Care 49,215 Gasoline Stations 625,772 Clothing and Accessories 328,331 Sporting Goods, Books and Music 110,068 General Merchandise 683,118 Miscellaneous 163,923 Nonstore Retailers 20,280 Food Services and Drinking Places 606,809 Total Retail and Food Services 4,088,902 All Other Outlets 1,465,855 Total All Outlets $5,554,758 (1) The taxable transaction figures by industry which are shown above may not be directly comparable to the "Total, All Outlets" figures due to rounded data. The categories for "Types of Business" are different from those in the prior table which sets forth taxable transactions in the County for the years 2004 through 2008. Source: California State Board of Equalization, Research and Statistics Division. B-8 281 Building and Real Estate Activity The following tables set forth five-year summaries of building permit valuations and new dwelling units authorized in the County (in both incorporated and unincorporated areas) for the years 2006 through 2010. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BUILDING PERMIT VALUATIONS (In Thousands) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 RESIDENTIAL New Single -Family $4,412,257 $2,207,520 $1,214,752 $ 891,825 $ 914,057 New Multi -Family 431,579 238,316 243,741 76,717 71,152 Alterations and Adjustments 158,098 141,996 118,490 85,148 94.428 Total Residential $5,001,934 $2,587,832 $1,576,983 $1,053,690 $1,079,637 NON-RESIDENTIAL New Commercial $ 648,068 $ 682,331 $ 539,944 $ 94,653 $ 191,324 New Industry 288,353 184,506 70,411 12,278 6,686 New Other(I) 290,010 240,765 138,766 107,334 98,105 Alterations & Adjustments 303,407 350,539 292,694 162,557 243,266 Total Nonresidential $1,529,838 $1,458,141 $1,041,815 $ 376,822 $ 539,379 TOTAL ALL BUILDING $6,531,772 $4,045,973 $2,618,798 $1,430,512 $1,619,016 Source: Construction Industry Research Board. (I) Includes churches and religious buildings, hospitals and institutional buildings, schools and educational buildings, residential garages, public works and utilities buildings and non-residential alterations and additions. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Single Family 20,692 9,763 3,815 3,424 4,031 Multi -Family 4,519 2,690 2,104 784 526 TOTAL 25,211 12,453 5,919 4,208 4,557 Source: Construction Industry Research Board. 50429258.5 B-9 • • 411/ 282 • • The following table sets forth a comparison of median housing prices for Los Angeles County, Riverside County and Southern California as of May 2010 and May 2011. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COMPARISON OF MEDIAN HOUSING PRICES County of Riverside Los Angeles County Southern California°l May May Percent 2010 2011 Change $210,000 $197,000 (6.19)% 350,000 320,000 (8.57) 305,000 280,000 (8.20) Source: MDA DataQuick Information Systems. "' Southern California comprises Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties. The following table sets forth a comparison of home and condominium foreclosures recorded in Los Angeles County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County and Southern California for the years and quarters indicated. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COMPARISON OF HOME FORECLOSURES Year Los Angeles 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1,997 12,466 35,366 29,943 26,827 San Riverside Bernardino 1,778 1,011 12,497 7,746 32,443 23,601 25,309 19,757 20,598 16,757 Southern California"' 7,355 46,086 125,117 100,106 86,853 Source: MDA DataQuick Information Systems. (I' Southern California comprises Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties. Agriculture Agriculture remains an important source of income in the County. Principal agricultural products are: nursery, milk, table grapes, eggs, avocados, grapefruit, alfalfa, bell peppers, dates, and lemons. Four areas in the County account for the major portion of agricultural activity: the Riverside/Corona and San Jacinto/Temecula Valley Districts in the western portion of the County, the Coachella Valley in the central portion and the Palo Verde Valley near the County's eastern border. The value of agricultural production in the County for the years 2006 through 2010 is set forth in the following table. 50429258.5 B-10 283 Citrus Fruits Trees and Vines Vegetables, Melons, Misc. Field and Seed Crops Nursery Apiculture Aquaculture Products Total Crop Valuation Livestock and Poultry Valuation Grand Total COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 2006 2007 $ 107,897,000 191,321,200 213,643,300 68,611,700 270,992,800 3,554,300 13,367,300 $ 869,387,600 $ 121,387,100 189,286,500 234,854,700 94,492,000 272,326,200 3,948,900 9,829,200 $ 926,124,600 234,903,400 338,938,600 $1,104,291,000 $1,265,063,200 Source: Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. (I) Estimated. 2008 2009 $ 135,759,000 173,678,000 266,414,900 123,545,400 230,416,200 5,637,000 12,077,700 $ 947,529,000 $ 101,652,000 191,682,600 221,286,700 69,699,800 206,499,900 5,017,600 5,243.900 $ 801,082,500 321,060,000 214.672.800 $1,268,589,900 $1,015,755,300 2010" $ 140,501,000 164,994,000 292,002,200 81,328,300 169,341,300 4,631,700 4,921,700 $ 857,720,200 235,926,300 $1,093,646,500 Transportation Several major freeways and highways provide access between the County and all parts of Southern California. The Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) extends southwest through Corona and connects with the Orange County freeway network in Fullerton. Interstate 10 traverses the width of the County, the western -most portion of which links up with major cities and freeways in the southern part of San Bernardino County with the eastern part linking to the County's Desert cities and Arizona. Interstates 15 and 215 extend north and then east to Las Vegas, and south to San Diego. State Route 60 provides an alternate (to Interstate 10) east -west link to Los Angeles County. Currently, Metrolink provides commuter rail service to Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange Counties from several stations in the County. Transcontinental passenger rail service is provided by Amtrak with stops in Riverside and Indio. Freight service to major west coast and national markets is provided by three transcontinental railroads — Union Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company. Truck service is provided by several common carriers, making available overnight delivery service to major California cities. Transcontinental bus service is provided by Greyhound Lines. Intercounty, intercity and local bus service is provided by the Riverside Transit Agency to western County cities and communities. There are also four municipal transit operators in the western County providing services within the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside. The SunLine Transit Agency provides local bus service throughout the Coachella Valley, including the cities of Palm Springs and Indio. The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency provides service in the far eastern portion of the County (City of Blythe and surrounding communities). The County seat, located in the City of Riverside, is within 20 miles of the Ontario International Airport in neighboring San Bernardino County. This airport is operated by the Los Angeles Department of Airports. Four major airlines schedule commercial flight service at Palm Springs Regional Airport. County -operated general aviation airports include those in Thermal, 50429258.5 B-11 • • 284 • • • Hemet, Blythe and French Valley. The cities of Riverside, Corona and Banning also operate general aviation airports. There is a military base at March Air Reserve Base, which converted from an active duty base to a reserve -only base on April 1, 1996. Plans for joint military and civilian use of the base thereafter are presently being formulated by the March AFB Joint Powers Authority, comprised of the County and the Cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley and Perris. Education There are four elementary school districts, one high school district, eighteen unified (K-12) school districts and four community college districts in the County. Ninety-five percent of all K-12 students attend schools in the unified school districts. The three largest unified school districts are Riverside Unified School District, Moreno Valley Unified School District and Corona -Norco Unified School District. There are seven two-year community college campuses located in the communities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Norco, San Jacinto, Menifee, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. There are also three universities located in the City of Riverside: the University of California at Riverside, La Sierra University and California Baptist University. 50429258.5 B-12 285 • • • 286 • 288 • • • APPENDIX D BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The information in this Appendix D concerning The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), and DTC's Book -Entry System has been obtained from DTC and the Commission, the Trustee and the Remarketing Agents take no responsibility for the completeness or accuracy thereof. The Commission, the Trustee and the Remarketing Agents cannot and do not give any assurances that DTC, DTC Participants or Indirect Participants or others will distribute any (a) payments of principal or purchase price or interest with respect to the 2009 Bonds, (b) certificates representing ownership interest in or other confirmation or ownership interest in the 2009 Bonds, or (c) redemption, tender or other notices sent to DTC or Cede & Co., its nominee, as the registered owner of the 2009 Bonds, or that they will do so on a timely basis, or that DTC, DTC Participants or DTC Indirect Participants will act in the manner described in this Appendix D. The current "Rules" applicable to DTC are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the current "Procedures" of DTC to be followed in dealing with DTC Participants are on file with DTC. The Commission, the Trustee and the Remarketing Agents are not responsible or liable for the failure of DTC or any DTC Participant to make any payment or give any notice to a beneficial owner with respect to the 2009 Bonds or an error or delay relating thereto. DTC will act as securities depository for the 2009 Bonds. The 2009 Bonds were issued as fully -registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. One fully - registered certificate will be issued for each maturity of the 2009 Bonds, in the aggregate principal amount of such maturity, and will be deposited with DTC. DTC is a limited -purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a "banking organization" within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 7A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds and provides asset servicing for over 3.5 million issues of U.S. and non-U.S. equity issues, corporate and municipal debt issues, and money market instruments (from over 100 countries) that DTC's participants ("Direct Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post -trade settlement among Direct Participants of sales and other securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book -entry transfers and pledges between Direct Participants' accounts. This eliminates the need for physical movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations. DTC is a wholly -owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation ("DTCC"). DTCC is the holding company for DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, all of which are registered clearing agencies. DTCC is owned by the users of its regulated subsidiaries. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or 50429258.5 D-1 289 maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly ("Indirect Participants"). DTC has Standard & Poor's highest rating: AAA. The DTC Rules applicable to its Participants are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. More information about DTC can be found at www.dtcc.com and www.dtc.org. The information set forth on such websites is not incorporated by reference. Purchases of 2009 Bonds under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the 2009 Bonds on DTC's records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each 2009 Bond ("Beneficial Owner") is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase. Beneficial Owners are, however, expected to receive written confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from the Direct or Indirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in the 2009 Bonds are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates representing their ownership interests in the 2009 Bonds, except in the event that use of the book -entry system for the 2009 Bonds is discontinued. To facilitate subsequent transfers, all 2009 Bonds deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are registered in the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co., or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of the 2009 Bonds with DTC and their registration in the name of Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the 2009 Bonds; DTC's records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such 2009 Bonds are credited, which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers. Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Beneficial Owners of the 2009 Bonds may wish to take certain steps to augment the transmission to them of notices of significant events with respect to the 2009 Bonds, such as redemptions, tenders, defaults, and proposed amendments to the 2009 Bond documents. For example, Beneficial Owners of the 2009 Bonds may wish to ascertain that the nominee holding the 2009 Bonds for their benefit has agreed to obtain and transmit notices to Beneficial Owners. In the alternative, Beneficial Owners may wish to provide their names and addresses to the registrar and request that copies of notices be provided directly to them. Redemption and tender notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the 2009 Bonds are being redeemed, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in such issue to be redeemed. Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. (nor any other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with respect to the 2009 Bonds unless authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC's 50429258.5 D-2 • 290 • • MMI Procedures. Under its usual procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to the Commission as soon as possible after the record date. The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to whose accounts the 2009 Bonds are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the Omnibus Proxy). Payments of principal or purchase price of and interest on the 2009 Bonds will be made to Cede & Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. DTC's practice is to credit Direct Participants' accounts upon DTC's receipt of funds and corresponding detail information from the Commission or the Trustee, on payable date in accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC's records. Payments by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in "street name," and will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC, the Trustee, or the Commission, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the 2009 Bonds to Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the responsibility of the Commission or the Trustee, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants. DTC may discontinue providing its services as depository with respect to the 2009 Bonds at any time by giving reasonable notice to the Commission or the Trustee. Under such circumstances, in the event that a successor depository is not obtained, security certificates are required to be printed and delivered. The Commission may decide to discontinue use of the system of book -entry -only transfers through DTC (or a successor securities depository). In that event, security certificates will be printed and delivered to DTC. 50429258.5 D-3 291 • 292 • • • 50429258.5 APPENDIX E BOND COUNSEL OPINION E-1 • • • 294 50429258.5 APPENDIX F CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT F -I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Certifying Perris Valley Line Final Environmental Impact Report Certification and Project Approval and Approving the Perris Valley Line Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-013, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Environmental Findings and a Statement of Project Benefits Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (Sch #2009011046), Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approving the Perris Valley Line Project': 1) Certify the Perris Valley Line (PVL) final environmental impact report (FIR); and 2) Approve the proposed projcct in accordance with the California BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The PVL project has long been a goal of the Commission. Planning for the proposed commuter rail extension began in 1988, when the Commission initiated a study of potential commuter rail sites along the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) that extends from Riverside to Perris, then to San Jacinto. In 1993, the Commission acquired the SJBL from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, now Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). The acquisition of the SJBL provided the Commission with the opportunity to extend existing Metrolink commuter rail service deeper into Riverside County, thereby providing commuters with another transportation alternative to the congested Interstate 215 corridor while supporting regional air quality goals. The San Jacinto Branchline//-215 Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis (Alternative Analysis) considered several alternatives to alleviate existing and future transportation deficiencies through use of existing transportation resources within the 1-215 corridor: No project alternative, express bus alternative, and commuter Agenda Item 10 rail alternative with three different options to connect the SJBL to the Downtown Riverside station. The Alternatives Analysis concluded the no project and express bus alternatives did not meet the identified project goals and objectives. In 2007, the Commission awarded a contract to STV, Incorporated (STV) to design and prepare the environmental documentation for the PVL. Work began on a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND). On April 9, 2008, the Commission identified the commuter rail alternative with a new connection to BNSF at Citrus Street as the locally preferred alternative (LPA). This LPA became the focus of environmental analysis. The IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment between January 20, and February 20, 2009. A public information meeting was held on February 4, followed by a public hearing on February 11, 2009. Comments received raised concerns over noise, traffic and visual impacts, station locations, as well as other mitigation concerns. After weighing public input, the Commission withdrew the IS/MND from further consideration and prepared an EIR, a more robust document under CEQA. Environmental Process Draft EIR The EIR process was initiated on July 14, 2009, when the notice of preparation was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and made publicly available as required by CEQA. A public scoping meeting was conducted on July 28, 2009, to provide the public and affected agencies an opportunity to identify areas of concern associated with the PVL project. Over the next several months, technical studies were conducted and reports prepared to support the draft EIR. The draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment between April 5 and May 24, 2010. Initially two public hearings were scheduled to occur during the review and comment period. These public hearings occurred April 14, and April 22, 2010; however, in response to public comments, an additional public hearing was added. This additional public hearing occurred May 17, 2010, bringing the total to three. Written (cards, letters, and email) and verbal (public hearing testimony) comments on the draft EIR were received. The comments were reviewed and evaluated by staff and the consultant team. Agenda Item 10 M Major concerns expressed included noise and vibration, as well as neighborhood safety -related issues such as risk of derailment, cargo spill, pipeline rupture, and potential for stopped trains to block access. The Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) expressed concern over potential impacts to Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools, both located adjacent to the existing SJBL. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for project -related potentially significant impacts include noise barriers; interior noise attenuation at eight properties; use of ballast mats and railroad tie assemblies to reduce noise and vibration; preparation of a transportation management plan; payment into the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' kangaroo rat; and compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Supplemental Measures In addition to mitigation measures for project -related impacts, a number of supplemental measures that are not required for CEQA mitigation purposes have also been added to the PVL project to allay concerns raised by the public. These measures include provision of walls at three elementary schools; imposition of a reduced speed limit for commuter trains at Highland Elementary School (operational speeds in the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary will be limited by the grade and curve in that alignment); provision of additional cover and non -permeable material over the existing fuel pipeline within the PVL project right of way near Highland Elementary School; and physical improvements to four at -grade crossings to complement the city of Riverside's intent to implement quiet zones. Final EIR Following the end of the public review and comment period, detailed responses to comments were prepared for inclusion in the final EIR. Additionally, while not a CEQA requirement, notification that the Commission intended to consider and certify the final EIR and approve the proposed PVL project at this Commission meeting was sent via post card and email on June 29, 2011, to those that commented on the draft EIR. Public agency comments were responded to via written letter on June 29, 2011. This is in accordance with CEQA guidelines §15088 that requires written responses be provided to public agencies commenting during the official comment period at least 10 days prior to certification of the final EIR. Agenda Item 10 M w Next Steps According to CEQA guidelines § 15090, the Commission, as the CEQA lead agency, shall certify that: 1) the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the state CEQA guidelines, and the Commission's CEQA guidelines; 2) the final EIR was presented to the Commission and that the Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR before approving the PVL project; and 3) the final EIR reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Commission is required to adopt a resolution adopting the environmental findings and a statement of project benefits pursuant to the CEQA, certifying the final environmental impact report, adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and approving the Perris Valley Line project. Should the Commission certify the PVL final EIR and approve the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA guidelines §15090 by adopting Resolution No. 11-013, a notice of determination (NOD) will be filed with the Riverside County Clerk and State Clearinghouse. The Clerk will post the NOD for public notification, thereby initiating the 30 -day CEQA legal challenge period. If no challenges are made by the end of the 30 days, the PVL project may proceed without prejudice. In the event a legal challenge is made, legal counsel for the Commission would respond accordingly and advise the Commission of available options. The proposed PVL project must also comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As such, approval of a separate NEPA supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) is proceeding in parallel under auspices of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). It is anticipated FTA will approve the SEA and issue a finding of no significant impact after the 30 -day CEQA legal challenge period for the final EIR has elapsed. Upon compliance with both CEQA and NEPA, the Commission may proceed to complete final design, apply for a project construction grant agreement, and obligate federal funds. Attachments: 1) PVL Final EIR - CD Enclosed 2) Resolution No. 11-013 Agenda Item 10 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Perris Valley Line Final Environmental Impact Report - Certification and Project Approval STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Certify the Perris Valley Line (PVL) final environmental impact report (EIR); and 2) Approve the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15090. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The PVL project has long been a goal of the Commission. Planning for the proposed commuter rail extension began in 1988, when the Commission initiated a study of potential commuter rail sites along the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) that extends from Riverside to Perris, then to San Jacinto. In 1993, the Commission acquired the SJBL from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, now Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). The acquisition of the SJBL provided the Commission with the opportunity to extend existing Metrolink commuter rail service deeper into Riverside County, thereby providing commuters with another transportation alternative to the congested Interstate 215 corridor while supporting regional air quality goals. The San Jacinto Branchline//-215 Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis (Alternative Analysis) considered several alternatives to alleviate existing and future transportation deficiencies through use of existing transportation resources within the 1-215 corridor: No project alternative, express bus alternative, and commuter rail alternative with three different options to connect the SJBL to the Downtown Riverside station. The Alternatives Analysis concluded the no project and express bus alternatives did not meet the identified project goals and objectives. Agenda Item 10 296 In 2007, the Commission awarded a contract to STV, Incorporated (STV) to design and prepare the environmental documentation for the PVL. Work began on a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND). On April 9, 2008, the Commission identified the commuter rail alternative with a new connection to BNSF at Citrus Street as the locally preferred alternative (LPA). This LPA became the focus of environmental analysis. The IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment between January 20, and February 20, 2009. A public information meeting was held on February 4, followed by a public hearing on February 11, 2009. Comments received raised concerns over noise, traffic and visual impacts, station locations, as well as other mitigation concerns. After weighing public input, the Commission withdrew the IS/MND from further consideration and prepared an EIR, a more robust document under CEQA. Environmental Process Draft EIR The EIR process was initiated on July 14, 2009, when the notice of preparation was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and made publicly available as required by CEQA. A public scoping meeting was conducted on July 28, 2009, to provide the public and affected agencies an opportunity to identify areas of concern associated with the PVL project. Over the next several months, technical studies were conducted and reports prepared to support the draft EIR. The draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment between April 5 and May 24, 2010. Initially two public hearings were scheduled to occur during the review and comment period. These public hearings occurred April 14, and April 22, 2010; however, in response to public comments, an additional public hearing was added. This additional public hearing occurred May 17, 2010, bringing the total to three. Written (cards, letters, and email) and verbal (public hearing testimony) comments on the draft EIR were received. The comments were reviewed and evaluated by staff and the consultant team. Major concerns expressed included noise and vibration, as well as neighborhood safety -related issues such as risk of derailment, cargo spill, pipeline rupture, and potential for stopped trains to block access. The Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) expressed concern over potential impacts to Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools, both located adjacent to the existing SJBL. 297 • • • Agenda Item 10 • Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for project -related potentially significant impacts include noise barriers; interior noise attenuation at eight properties; use of ballast mats and railroad tie assemblies to reduce noise and vibration; preparation of a transportation management plan; payment into the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' kangaroo rat; and compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Supplemental Measures In addition to mitigation measures for project -related impacts, a number of supplemental measures that are not required for CEQA mitigation purposes have also been added to the PVL project to allay concerns raised by the public. These measures include provision of walls at three elementary schools; imposition of a reduced speed limit for commuter trains at Highland Elementary School (operational speeds in the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary will be limited by the grade and curve in that alignment); provision of additional cover and non -permeable material over the existing fuel pipeline within the PVL project right of way near Highland Elementary School; and physical improvements to four at -grade crossings to complement the city of Riverside's intent to implement quiet zones. 0 Final EIR • Following the end of the public review and comment period, detailed responses to comments were prepared for inclusion in the final EIR. Additionally, while not a CEQA requirement, notification that the Commission intended to consider and certify the final EIR and approve the proposed PVL project at this Commission meeting was sent via post card and email on June 29, 2011, to those that commented on the draft EIR. Public agency comments were responded to via written letter on June 29, 2011. This is in accordance with CEQA guidelines §15088 that requires written responses be provided to public agencies commenting during the official comment period at least 10 days prior to certification of the final EIR. Agenda Item 10 298 M Next Steps According to CEQA guidelines §15090, the Commission, as the CEQA lead agency, shall certify that: 1) the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the state CEQA guidelines, and the Commission's CEQA guidelines; 2) the final EIR was presented to the Commission and that the Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR before approving the PVL project; and 3) the final EIR reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis. Should the Commission certify the PVL final EIR and approve the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA guidelines §15090, a notice of determination (NOD) will be filed with the Riverside County Clerk and State Clearinghouse. The Clerk will post the NOD for public notification, thereby initiating the 30 -day CEQA legal challenge period. If no challenges are made by the end of the 30 days, the PVL project may proceed without prejudice. In the event a legal challenge is made, legal counsel for the Commission would respond accordingly and advise the Commission of available options. The proposed PVL project must also comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As such, approval of a separate NEPA supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) is proceeding in parallel under auspices of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). It is anticipated FTA will approve the SEA and issue a finding of no significant impact after the 30 -day CEQA legal challenge period for the final EIR has elapsed. Upon compliance with both CEQA and NEPA, the Commission may proceed to complete final design, apply for a project construction grant agreement, and obligate federal funds. Attachment: PVL Final EIR — Posted on Commission Website 299 • • • Agenda Item 10 RESOLUTION NO. 11-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF PROJECT BENEFITS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2009011046), ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Perris Valley Line project is a proposed rail extension that would extend 24 -miles of commuter rail service from the existing Riverside Downtown Station to south of the City of Perris in western Riverside County using a 3 -mile segment of the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe ("BNSF") main line and connecting to the San Jacinto Branch Line ("SJBL") with the proposed Citrus Connection (an approximately 2,000 -foot long curved rail segment that connects the BNSF to the SJBL for approximately 21 miles extending south to the City of Perris), thereby extending commuter rail service into the Interstate 215 corridor (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq. (hereinafter, "the State CEQA Guidelines"), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Local Guidelines (collectively, "CEQA"), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") is the CEQA lead agency for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the Commission prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") for the Project and circulated the IS/MND for public review and comment in January 2009; and WHEREAS, the Commission held two public outreach workshops in June 2008, a public information meeting in February 2009, and two public hearings in February 2009 to accept comments from the public on the IS/MND; and WHEREAS, the Commission, in accordance with CEQA, decided to discontinue the IS/MND process and instead prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") in order to analyze all potentially adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Commission solicited comments, including details about the scope and content of the environmental analysis, as well as potential feasible mitigation measures, from responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public, in a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Draft EIR which was distributed on July 14, 2009, and circulated for a period of at least thirty (30) days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082(a); and WHEREAS, the Commission received approximately 5 comment letters in response to the NOP, which assisted the Commission in focusing the scope of the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15082(c) and 15083, the Commission held a scoping meeting on July 28, 2009 at the Moreno Valley Towngate Community Center to gather public comments on the Project, the NOP, and the potential impacts that the Project would have on the physical environment; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15087, the Commission initiated a public review period for the Draft EIR on April 5, 2010 by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research and publicly circulating the Draft EIR to state agencies, other affected agencies, adjacent cities and counties, members of the public, and parties who had submitted a written request for a copy; and WHEREAS, the public comment period on the Draft EIR closed on May 24, 2010; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the Commission consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, three public hearings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIR for the Project on April 14, 2010, April 22, 2010, and May 17, 2010; and WHEREAS, during the official public comment period, the Commission received approximately 38 written comment letters on the Draft EIR as well as numerous oral and other comments; and WHEREAS, the Commission has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR"), which includes revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR and written responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the Commission provided copies of its written responses to all public agency comments received during the 45 - day public review period for the EIR at least 10 days prior to the Commission's consideration of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were fully analyzed in the EIR and all feasible mitigation measures were imposed to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the Commission has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA have been satisfied by the Commission in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which fully analyzes the Project's potentially significant environmental effects as well as feasible mitigation measures; and 2 WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project fully analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts and a range of potentially feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Commission pursuant to this Resolution are based upon all oral and written evidence in the administrative record as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the Commission finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 below; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the Commission finds are potentially significant but can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, are described in Section 3 below; and WHEREAS, the cumulative environmental impacts of the Project identified in the EIR are described in Section 4 below; and WHEREAS, irreversible environmental changes identified in the EIR are described in Section 5 below; and WHEREAS, growth inducing impacts identified in the EIR are described in Section 6 below; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 7 below; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which sets forth the mitigation measures to which the Commission shall bind itself in connection with the Project, is adopted in Section 11 below, and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, reflects the independent judgment of the Commission, and is fully adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made or information presented during or after the EIR's public review period has produced any significant new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and 3 WHEREAS, on July 13, 2011, the Commission conducted a duly noticed public meeting on the Project at which time the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes to extend 24 miles of commuter rail service, known as the Perris Valley Line (PVL), from the existing downtown Riverside Downtown Station to the cities of Moreno Valley and Penis in western Riverside County. In the City of Riverside, the PVL would connect to the existing Riverside Downtown Station from the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way. From the BNSF, the PVL would operate on a new curved rail segment known as the "Citrus Connection," which would connect the BNSF and the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL). The Citrus Connection would be constructed on property that would be located north of Citrus Street and Springbrook Wash in the City of Riverside. The eastern end of the Citrus Connection would link to the existing 21 -mile SJBL alignment and extend south to the City of Perris. The Project would provide rail upgrades, such as new ballast and welded rail, would add a second track along a portion of the existing San Jacinto Branch Line, and would also include support facilities, including station areas and a Layover Facility. Once built, the Project's commuter rail services would be operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. B. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Pursuant to section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Commission may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the Commission makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 4 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as identified in the EIR; or 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency other than the Commission, and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 3. Specific economic, social, legal or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Notably, Public Resources Code section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 ("[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible").) The Public Resources Code requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts. An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 adds "legal" considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.) Project objectives also inform the determination of "feasibility." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) "`[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project's environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced "to permit a 5 reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." Outside agencies (including courts) are not to "impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Corn. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.) C. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS As more fully explained below, this document contains the written CEQA findings required by CEQA. The Commission has determined that based on all of the evidence in the administrative record as a whole, including, but not limited to the EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of comments, and the responses to comments, that the Project will have no potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. More specifically, all of the Project's potential environmental impacts are less than significant or less than significant with mitigation as set forth below: No Impact or Less than Significant Impact that Do Not Require Mitigation The Project has been found to have no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas: • Aesthetics: Scenic Vistas, Scenic Highways, Visual Character and Quality • Agricultural Resources: Convert Viable Farmland, Existing Zoning or Williamson Act Contract, Forest Land and Timberland • Air Quality: Applicable Air Quality Plan, Violate Air Quality Standards, Criteria Pollutants, Sensitive Receptors, Odors • Biological Resources: Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife, Local Policies Regarding Biological Resources, Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan • Geology And Soils: Seismic Hazards, Soil Erosion, Geologic Hazards, Expansive Soils, Septic Systems • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Conflict with Applicable Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials; Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials; Hazardous Materials Near Schools; Airport Hazards; Private Airstrip Hazards • Hydrology/Water Quality: Water Quality Standards; Groundwater; Drainage and Erosion; Drainage and Runoff; Runoff; Water Quality; Housing and 100 -Year Flood; Structures and 100 -Year Flood; Dam Inundation; Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow • Land Use and Planning: Division of Established Community, Land Use Plan Consistency, Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan 6 • Mineral Resources: All thresholds of significance • Noise and Vibration: Temporary Noise Increase, Airport Noise, and Airstrip Noise • Population & Housing: All thresholds of significance • Public Services: All thresholds of significance • Recreation: All thresholds of significance • Traffic and Transportation: Air Traffic Patterns, Hazards Due to Design Features, Emergency Access, Alternative Transportation • Utilities and Service Systems: Wastewater, New or Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facilities, New or Expanded Stormwater Facilities, Water Supplies, Capacity of Wastewater Facilities, Landfills, Solid Waste Potentially Significant Impacts that Can be Avoided or Reduced to a Less than Significant Level through Implementation of Mitigation Measures The Project has been found to have a less than significant impact, following the imposition of feasible mitigation measures, to the following resources areas: • Aesthetics: Light and Glare • Biological Resources: Sensitive Species, Riparian Habitat, Wetlands • Cultural Resources: Historical Resources, Archeological Resources, Paleontological Resources, Human Remains • Hazardous and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous Materials Sites, Emergency Evacuation Plan, Wildland Fires • Noise and Vibration: Permanent Noise Increase, Noise Generation, Groundborne Vibration and Noise • Traffic and Transportation: Increase Traffic, Exceed Levels of Service Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the Commission to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Commission adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project in Section 11 of this Resolution. 7 SECTION 2 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies have "no impact" or a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, these findings fully account for all resource areas, including resource areas that were identified in the EIR to have either no impact or a less than significant impact on the environment. The Commission hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures: A. Aesthetics 1. Scenic Vistas (Threshold 4.1-1): Any structures required for the Project would be visually consistent with existing visual landscape and thus would not significantly alter the visual landscape or impair scenic views. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts on scenic vistas. The visual landscape where the Citrus Connection will occur is of existing public roads and railways and also features commercial, industrial, and residential land uses. (Draft EIR', pp. 4.1-7 to 8.) The Citrus Connection will closely resemble existing conditions and would not significantly alter the visual landscape. (Ibid.) A portion of the Project also involves upgrading the existing track along the SJBL alignment and adding a double track in certain segments (depicted in Figure 2.4-3 of the Draft EIR), which entails ground -level changes only and thus does not significantly alter the visual landscape. (Ibid.) The Project also includes construction of several radio towers, including the CP Citrus Radio Tower, the Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower, and CP Marlborough Radio Tower. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10.) Box Springs Mountain Reserve is to the southeast of these towers; however, these towers have thin profiles and their shelter would not exceed the height of existing structures in the areas, and thus their development would not introduce any new visually impacting elements near Box Springs Mountain Reserve. (Ibid.) Visible about one mile west of the CP Eastridge Radio Tower is the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park, but given existing conditions and the tower's thin profile, the tower is consistent with the visual landscape and no new visually impacting elements would be introduced. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-10 to 11.) The Riverside National Cemetery is viewable from the CP Oleander Radio Tower, but the tower's thin profile is similar to existing telephone poles and would therefore be consistent with the visual landscape and not introduce any significantly adverse scenic impacts around the Riverside National Cemetery (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11.) Likewise, Motte Rimrock Reserve can be seen to the west of the CP Nuevo Radio Tower, but based upon existing conditions and the tower's thin profile, the tower would be consistent with the visual impacts and no new significant impacts would result. (Ibid.) There are no scenic vistas near to any of the other communication towers that would be constructed for the Project (East Maintenance Facility, the South Perris Station Communication Shelter and Tower, and the Control Point Mapes Radio Tower) and thus no impact would occur from their construction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10.) ' Cites to the Draft EIR throughout this Findings document are to the Draft EIR, as revised and as incorporated as part of the Final EIR. 8 Additionally, the Project involves four stations: the Hunter Park Station, the Moreno Valley/March Field Station, the Downtown Perris Station, and South Penis Station and the Layover Facility. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-7 to 4.1-10.) • The Hunter Park Station would be constructed at one of three sites adjacent to the SJBL alignment and south of the Citrus Connection. Box Springs Mountain Reserve abuts the existing SJBL alignment and can be seen southeast from the proposed station locations, but Hunter Park cannot be seen from any of the proposed stations due to intervening development. The views around the proposed Station consist of roads, agricultural land, industrial buildings that are equal or greater in height than the proposed Station and thus no new visually impacting elements near Box Spring Mountain Reserve or Hunter Park will be introduced from this Station. (Ibid.) • The Moreno Valley/March Field Station is near the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park and was approved as part of the Meridian Business Park Plan in 2003. This Station will not introduce any new visually impacting elements near Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park. (Ibid.) • The Downtown Perris Station is part of the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility that is currently under construction adjacent to the SJBL alignment in downtown Penis. Located to the north are Russell Stewart Park, Metz Park, Foss Field Park, and Banta Beatty Park, all of which are not visible from the proposed Downtown Perris Station. The views around the Station consist of light industrial, agricultural, and residential structures, and the City of Perris has also approved plans to revitalize downtown in the area surrounding the Multimodal Transit Facility. Given the existing conditions and the planned construction, the Station would not introduce any new visually impacting elements and would not negatively impact scenic vistas in the area. (Ibid.) • There are no scenic vistas identified near to the South Perris Station and the Layover Facility and thus no impact would result. (Ibid.) Landscape walls are incorporated into the Project design. Landscape walls will be constructed at Highland Elementary and also at Hyatt Elementary as depicted in Figure 4.1-4 of the EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-12 tol4.) Also, RCTC will fund another landscape wall at Nan Sanders Elementary School. (Ibid.) The walls will be located within the PVL ROW adjacent to the school properties. Although these landscape walls are not mitigation for any potentially significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13), they are nonetheless being provided as Project features in response to concerns and requests from the community and the local school district. The landscape wall near Highland Elementary School will be located between two of the noise mitigation barriers. This location will create a continuous 3140 foot long wall between Spruce Street and Blaine Street. The height of the wall will vary between 9 and 13 feet. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13.) The views from Highland Elementary School of Highland Park to the northeast and Box Springs Mountain Reserve to the east will not be impacted by the wall that would be to the west of the school. The height of the wall, as a general concern, would not exceed the height of existing structures and therefore would not obstruct scenic views of the park and reserve for either the school or neighboring residential properties, or substantially degrade the existing 9 visual landscape of the area. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-12 to 13.) Furthermore, the wall placed along the eastern edge of Hyatt Elementary will not exceed the height of existing school buildings and thus would not significantly alter the visual landscape or impair scenic views of the Box Springs Mountain Reserve, which is adjacent to the railroad and the school. (Ibid.) A landscape wall is also intended for Nan Sanders Elementary School, but ROW constrictions at the school require that the Commission provide funding for the design and construction of the wall, instead of constructing the wall itself. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-14.) This wall would block views of the ROW as well as views of I-215. These views, however, are not identified as significant views for this area of the Project because the rail alignment along this portion of the Project site is not considered a valuable scenic resource and thus impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.) 2. Scenic Highways (Threshold 4.1-2): The Project intersects the segment of the SR -74, which is eligible for designation as a state scenic highway, as well as the Ramona Expressway. The City of Riverside has also established three Scenic and Special Boulevards that fall within the Project area: Palmyrita Avenue, Marlborough Avenue, and Alessandro Boulevard. The Project, however, does not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to tress, rock croppings, and historic building within the applicable state scenic highways. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 to 19.) The Project intersects the segment of the SR -74 that is eligible for designation as a state scenic highway, as well as the Ramona Expressway. The City of Riverside has also established three Scenic and Special Boulevards that fall within the Project: Palmyrita Avenue, Marlborough Avenue, and Alessandro Boulevard. Neither Palmyrita nor Marlborough Avenues are visible from the Citrus Connection and no new visually impacting elements would be introduced by the Connection to detract from the views along these Avenues. As concerns the SJBL alignment, which involves upgrading the existing track and thus involves only ground -level changes, proposed development would resemble existing conditions and would not introduce new visually impacting elements to the area or detract from the scenic views of Palmyrita Avenue, Marlborough Avenue, Ramona Expressway, or SR -74. The Hunter Park Station option involves station buildings that would not exceed the height of existing structures in the area, and thus any proposed development for this portion of the Project would be consistent with existing conditions and would not introduce new visually impacting elements that would detract from the scenic views along Palmyrita and Marlborough Avenues. The Moreno Valley/March Field Station is part of the approved Meridian Business Park Specific Plan, which has indicated that Alessandro Boulevard would not be negatively impacted by the development of this Station option. The Downtown Perris Station is visible from SR -74, but the existing and planned urban view from SR -74, the addition of this Station would not introduce new visually distracting elements to the area or negatively affect the future designation of SR -74 as a State Scenic Highway. The South Perris Station and Layover Facility are located within the viewshed of SR - 74, but they would be consistent with existing conditions and would not introduce new visually impacting elements around SR -74, nor would the implementation of this portion of the Project affect the future designation of SR -74 as a State Scenic Highway. The Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower and CP Marlborough Radio Tower are located along Palmyrita Avenue and Marlborough Avenue, respectively, near the SJBL alignment, but the Towers have a thin profile and would blend in with existing conditions and thus not introduce new visually detracting elements along Palmyrita and Marlborough Avenues. CP Oleander Radio Tower is about 1.7 miles north of the intersection of Ramona Expressway and I-215, and the CP Nuevo Radio 10 Tower is about 3 miles south. But, the thin profile of the Towers would blend in with the visual landscape and would therefore not detract from the scenic view of the Expressway. The South Perris Station Communication Shelter and Tower and CP Mapes Radio Tower may be visible to drivers along the SR -74, but the South Perris Shelter Station Communication Tower would blend in with existing conditions and would therefore not introduce any new visually detracting elements around SR -74. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 to 4.1-19.) No trees, rock outcroppings, or historical buildings are located near the Citrus Connection, the SJBL alignment, the Hunter Park Station options, the South Perris Station and Layover Facility, the Palmyrita Station Microwave Tower, the CP Marlborough Radio Tower, CP Oleander Radio Tower, CP Nuevo Radio Tower, the South Perris Station Communication Shelter and Tower and the CP Mapes Radio Tower. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 to 4.1-19.) The Perris Depot is an historic building located in the vicinity of SR -74 and the Downtown Perris Station option. No trees or rock croppings are located in the area, however. The proposed development of the Downtown Perris Station would not alter, impair, or diminish the qualities for which the historic Perris Depot is valued and any proposed development would in fact be consistent with existing conditions. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-17 to 18.) There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the East Maintenance Facility, the CP Citrus Tower, and the CP Eastridge Radio Control Tower, and no impacts will result. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-18.) 3. Visual Character and Quality (Threshold 4.1-3): Project does not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. As discussed previously, the proposed tracks, stations, Layover Facility, communication towers, and landscape walls within the PVL corridor would conform to the current land use of the area and blend in with existing development. The proposed development would serve only to upgrade the current railways and construct buildings that are of a similar height to the surrounding structures. Therefore, the visual character and quality of the area within the PVL corridor would not be affected by these proposed developments. Replacing two bridges along the SJBL alignment is also a component to the proposed Project. These existing bridges, which span the San Jacinto River at MP 20.70 and MP 20.80, would be replaced in -kind. Since they would have a similar visual character as the original bridges, the current look and quality of the area within the PVL corridor would not be degraded. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-19.) B. Agricultural Resources 1. Convert Viable Farmland (Threshold 4.2-1): The Project does not involve the conversion of Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural uses and thus no significant impact will result from the Project on such resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-6 to 1 1 .) Farmland designations for the relevant portions of the Project are based on maps provided by the Riverside County Land Information System (2008) and the CDC's FMMP (2006). The SJBL alignment and Downtown Perris Station are not subject to the applicable regulations because they are not designated as farmland and therefore would not involve 11 conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The California LESA Model for a corridor project was used to evaluate if significant impacts would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project (see Appendix D). The total LESA score for each of the three corridor options (see Table 4.2-3) was less than 39 points, which indicates that the conversion of farmland is not a significant impact, regardless of which Hunter Park Station is selected. The Project is also occurring on sites that have already been slated for development in the future, as set forth in the pertinent portions of the Riverside County General Plan, the City of Riverside General Plan, and the City of Perris General Plan. To illustrate, the Citrus Connection is located on land designated as Farmland of Local Importance, but the area is now approved for a warehouse/distribution center, and thus the development of the Project is not altering the planned land use of the area. The land considered for the three Hunter Park Station options was previously designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance, those options are located in an area that has been approved for Business/Office Park development and is now designated for light industrial uses. Given the change in the land use designation of the area for the proposed stations, the three options would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance to non-agricultural uses. The Moreno Valley/March Field Station is part of the approved Meridian Specific Plan and there it was determined that the site for this station was no longer designated as farmland. The South Perris Station and the Layover Facility is on land was designated as Farmland of Local Importance but is now approved for Public and Community Commercial Land Use designations, and also involves vacant land that will be developed pursuant to the approved Riverglen and Green Valley Specific Plans, and thus the station and facility would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of State/Local Importance to non-agricultural uses. The Project would therefore not have any significant impact on agricultural resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-7 to 4.2-11.) 2. Existing Zoning or Williamson Act Contract (Threshold 4.2-2): The Project does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or with Williamson Act contracts. There are no Williamson Act contracts affecting land involved in the Project. Any development on the Project sites is also consistent with existing zoning land uses, as explained in pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-10 of the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-11.) 3. Forest Land and Timberland (Threshold 4.2-3): No components of the Project would convert existing designated Farmland to non-agricultural use, nor would any impact to forest land result. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on forest land or timberland resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-12.) C. Air Quality 1. Applicable Air Quality Plan (Threshold 4.3-1): The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. The Project is included in the Southern California Area Government's 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, which indicates that the Project's operational emissions meet the transportation conformity requirements imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"). The SCAQMD manages the South Coast Air Basin, which is the Basin in which the PVL Project is located. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts in this regard. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-14.) 12 2. Violate Air Quality Standards (Threshold 4.3-2): The Project does not violate any existing air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts in this regard. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 to 28.) CO Intersection Analysis: Vehicle exhaust is typically the primary source of CO emissions in an urban setting. CO concentrations are generally analyzed at intersections because if impacts are less than significant in close proximity to the congested intersections, then impacts will also be less than significant at more distant sensitive receptor locations. The SCAQMD recommends a hot -spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when volumes -to -capacity ratios are increased by two percent at intersections with a Level of Service ("LOS") of C or worse. Four intersections were accordingly analyzed at the proposed Downtown Perris Station where a large amount of parking is expected and thus a significant number of vehicle trips are expected to be generated. Table 4.3-7 of the Draft EIR shows the Project's CO concentrations for AM and PM peak hour periods (one and eight hour periods), and demonstrates that the Project would not have a significant impact upon local concentrations due to mobile source emissions. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur at any other locations in the study area because the conditions yielding CO hotspots would not be worse than those occurring at the analyzed intersections. As a result, the sensitive receptors included in the analysis would not be significantly affected by the CO emissions generated by the net changes in traffic that would occur under the Project. Because the Project does not cause an exceedance or exacerbate an existing exceedance of an Ambient Air Quality Standard, the Project's localized operational air quality impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 to 4.3-18.) CO Parking Lot Analysis: There would be four stations with parking lots, and CO concentrations were evaluated for the largest parking lot (880 spaces) because if impacts are less than significant at the largest parking lot, then impacts would also be less than significant at each of the smaller parking lot locations. The maximum offsite CO concentration at any sensitive receptor around the 880 -space parking lot perimeter was determined to be 7.9 parts per million and 5.6 parts per million for the one and eight hour averaging periods, which occurred at a distance of 100 meters from the proposed parking lot. At the model default of 25 meters, the one hour and eight hour concentrations were 7.2 and 8.0 parts per million (see Table 4.3-8). These worst case scenarios are below the NAAQS of 35 parts per million and 9 parts per million for the one and eight hour averaging periods. They are also below the CAAQS one hour concentration not exceeding 20 parts per million, and the eight hour concentration of 9 parts per million. The Project's local operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3- 12 to 4.3-18.) PM2.5 and PM l 0: The Project is in an area designated nonattainment for PM2.5 and PM l 0 and although it is not an exempt project under 40 CFR section 93.126, only projects considered to be a Project Of Air Quality Concern ("POAQC") are required to undergo a PM2.5/PM 10 hot spot analysis pursuant to section 93.126(b). The Project is not POAQC, as discussed on page 4.3-19 of the EIR, and a quantitative PM2.5/PM10 analysis is therefore not required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18 to 20.) 13 Mobile Source Air Toxics — Health Risk Assessment: Projects with low potential MSAT effects, like the Project here, may analyze MSATs qualitatively. To estimate the localized MSAT effect of the new train service, a health risk assessment ("HRA") was conducted following CEQA air quality guidelines. The HRA takes into account the effects of air toxic contaminants on human health. Diesel, PM2.5 and PMl O, and acrolein were selected for analysis as the U.S. EPA identifies them as part of a group of priority MSATs. The HRA calculates a health risk index based on the emissions from diesel locomotives currently being used by SCRRA/Metrolink on other rail lines, as well as the running and idle times of the engines. This estimate is conservative since engines used by the Project completion year will be required to meet stricter U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards. SCAQMD, in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, identifies an excess individual cancer risk of one in one million to be minimal, and risk levels of up to ten in one million are considered less than significant. The chronic hazard indexes for these two toxics are also calculated to determine the likelihood of chronic health effects due to exposure. Per SCAQMD, a hazard index less than 1.0 is considered acceptable. The results of the HRA are shown in Table 4.3-9 of the EIR and appears in full detail as Air Quality Technical Report B located in Appendix C of the EIR. Table 4.3-9 shows that there would be no exceedances of the impact thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants arising from the operation of the Project. As requested by the SCAG TCWG, prior to construction, the Commission would submit a project review form for the PM2.5 and PM 10 hot spot analysis to TCWG for their concurrence with the finding that the proposed Project would not be considered a project of air quality concern with respect to PM2.5 or PM 10 emissions as defined by 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-20 to 21.) Supplemental Baseline Analysis: Under SCAQMD procedures, no air quality assessment of intersections is required for the "Baseline"2 condition. Thus, for these conditions, there are no air quality metrics (i.e. maximum pollutant concentrations) available to describe traffic -related air quality. As a result, the metric utilized here to describe "Baseline" conditions is the traffic LOS, which measures the level of intersection congestion. Traffic congestion has a major influence on potential increases in pollutant concentrations at the microscale (sidewalk) level. Consequently, the SCAQMD LOS screening procedures were used as the tool to select those intersections where more detailed mobile source air quality analysis could be appropriate. Based on SCAQMD screening procedures, intersections with a LOS of C or better are not of concern with respect to air quality. As a result, those intersections which would be considered a LOS D or worse were selected for comparison. (Final EIR at 0.2-10 to 0.2-16.) For the No Build + Project scenario3, SCAQMD screening criteria recommends a detailed air quality analysis for signalized intersections exhibiting an LOS D or worse and an increase of 2% or more in volume to capacity ratio (v/c) ratio when measured from the "No Build" to the No Build + Project condition. For the PVL environmental documents, four intersections meeting the SCAQMD criteria were selected for a detailed air quality analysis. These selected intersections would have the greatest potential to have an adverse air quality impact due to the large amount of expected parking, project -generated trips and projected traffic growth. (Ibid.) 2 "Baseline" represents traffic intersection conditions in 2008 when the data collection effort was undertaken. 3 Conditions in 2012 opening year of the PVL project; therefore, this condition includes the PVL project, No Build projects, and changes to the roadway network since 2008. 4 Unsignalized intersections are generally not analyzed for air quality impacts because such locations are not characterized by lengthy queuing. 14 For the Baseline + Project scenarios, SCAQMD screening criteria were also utilized to determine the number of intersections that would potentially require a detailed analysis. SCAQMD mobile source analysis criteria are designed to measure the differences between the No Build and No Build + Project scenarios. However, the criterion was also applied for the Baseline and Baseline + Project scenario in order to facilitate a qualitative comparative assessment between the No Build + Project scenario and the Baseline + Project scenario. Because the comparative assessment only requires the use of the LOS for selected traffic intersections, no detailed air quality analysis was performed as a result of the selection of intersections under this analysis scenario. (Ibid.) Hunter Park Station Baseline Scenario For the Hunter Park Station, the PVL traffic analysis for the three location options (Palmyrita, Columbia, and Marlborough) resulted in the analysis of four signalized intersections. Only one of these four intersections operated at LOS D or worse during the PM peak period. LOS D represents the point at which a traffic intersection starts to experience some noticeable decrease in operational efficiency. These inefficiencies could result in an increase in pollutant concentrations nearby. The Baseline traffic intersection with an overall LOS D Condition is shown below (ibid.): • Iowa Avenue @ Center Street - LOS D Baseline + Project Scenario Under all of the analyzed station location options, only one of the four intersections would display a LOS D or worse and an increase in volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of two percent or more, meeting the SCAQMD criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis (ibid.): • Iowa Avenue @ Center Street - LOS E None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a detailed analysis. (Ibid.) No Build + Project Scenario Under SCAQMD criteria, a quantitative assessment is recommended for signalized intersections operating at LOS D or worse while having an increase in volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c) of at least two percent. Under the "No Build + Project" scenario two intersections met the SCAQMD criteria for detailed mobile source air quality analysis for the proposed Hunter Park Station location. • Iowa Avenue @ Center Street - LOS E • Iowa Avenue @ Columbia Avenue - LOS D 5 Assumes that only the PVL project is overlaid on 2008 Baseline Conditions; therefore, this condition excludes No Build projects and future changes to the roadway network. 15 None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a detailed analysis. (Ibid.) Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario The Baseline + Project scenario indicates that one intersection would meet the criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis as compared to the No Build + Project scenario, for which two intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria for mobile source analysis. (Ibid.) Moreno Valley/March Field Station Baseline Scenario Four signalized intersections were analyzed for the traffic study at the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field station location. Only one of these four studied intersections near this station operated at LOS D or worse during the PM peak period. The Baseline traffic intersection with a LOS D Condition is shown below (ibid.): • Cactus Avenue @ Valley Spring Pkwy/Old SR -215 — LOS D Baseline + Project Scenario Only one of the four intersections analyzed in the traffic study displayed a LOS of D or worse and an increase in V/C ratio of two percent or more, meeting the criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis, as recommended by SCAQMD. • Cactus Avenue @ 1-215 SB Ramp — LOS D None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a detailed analysis. (Ibid.) No Build + Project Scenario Following SCAQMD screening criteria, a quantitative assessment is recommended for signalized intersections operating at LOS D or worse while having an increase in volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c) of at least two percent. Under the "No Build + Project" scenario one of the four studied intersections would meet the criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis. • Cactus Avenue @ 1-215 SB Ramp — LOS F None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a detailed analysis. (Ibid.) Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario The Baseline + Project scenario indicates that one intersection would meet the criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis. The No Build + Project scenario also indicates one intersection that would meet the SCAQMD criteria for mobile source analysis. (Ibid.) 16 Downtown Perris Station Baseline Scenario Six signalized intersections were analyzed for the traffic study at the proposed Downtown Penis station location. One of the studied intersections near this station operated at LOS D or worse during the PM peak period. The Baseline traffic intersection with a LOS D Condition is shown below (ibid.): • San Jacinto Avenue @ Perris Blvd — LOS D. Baseline + Project Scenario Two of the six analyzed traffic intersections displayed a LOS of D or worse and an increase in v/c ratio of two percent or more, meeting the SCAQMD criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis. • SR -74/W. 4th Street @ Navajo Road — LOS D • San Jacinto Avenue @ Penis Blvd — LOS D. None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a detailed analysis. (Ibid.) No Build + Project Scenario Following SCAQMD screening criteria, a quantitative assessment is recommended for signalized intersections operating at LOS D or worse while having an increase in volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c) of at least two percent. Under the "No Build + Project" scenario four of the six studied intersections would meet the criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis. • SR -74/W. 4th Street @ Navajo Road — LOS D • SR -74/W. 4th Street @ D Street — LOS F • San Jacinto Avenue @ Perris Blvd — LOS D • San Jacinto Avenue @ D Street — LOS D None of the other studied traffic intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria requiring a detailed analysis. (Ibid.) Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario For the Baseline Conditions + Project scenario, two intersections would meet the criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis as compared to four intersections under the No Build Conditions + Project scenario. Since the initial air quality assessment, one additional intersection was included with those selected for the No Build Conditions + Project scenario because conditions for this intersection have since changed (a traffic signal has since been installed at this location). As a result, the intersection, SR -74/W. 4th Street @ C Street — LOS D would now meet the SCAQMD criteria for a mobile source analysis. (Ibid.) 17 South Perris Station Baseline Scenario At the proposed South Perris Station location, no signalized intersections would meet the SCAQMD LOS D air quality screening analysis criteria. The relocated Mapes Road and Station Access Road intersection, which would be improved as part of the PVL project, does not currently exist and therefore, would be analyzed based on future conditions only. (Ibid.) Baseline + Project Scenario Intersections built or modified as a result of the project (such as the relocated Mapes Road) do not have an existing condition for comparison of V/C ratios. Consequently, the SCAQMD criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis is not applicable. However, in the future condition, the newly created Mapes Road @ Station Access Road intersection would operate at a LOS C. As a result, it is not an intersection of concern with respect to air quality. (Ibid.) No Build + Project Scenario Intersections modified as a result of the project would not have a "No Build" condition for comparison of V/C ratios. Consequently, the SCAQMD criteria for a mobile source air quality analysis is not applicable. However, in the future condition, the newly created Mapes Road @ Station Access Road intersection would operate at a LOS C. As a result, it is not an intersection of concern with respect to air quality. (Ibid.) Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario For the Baseline + Project scenario and the No Build + Project scenario no intersections would meet the SCAQMD criteria such that they would require a detailed mobile source air quality analysis. In addition, the newly created Mapes Road @ Station Access Road intersection would operate at a LOS C. As a result, it is not an intersection of concern with respect to air quality. (Ibid.) Construction -Related Impacts: Construction is a source of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions that can have substantial temporary impacts on local air quality causing exceedance of CAAQS for PM10 and/or PM2.5. Dust emissions would result from earthmoving and use of heavy equipment, as well as land clearing, ground excavation, and cut -and -fill operations. However, as most standard dust prevention measures would significantly reduce the level of soil - related dust, a major portion of dust emissions for the proposed Project would be caused by construction -related vehicle traffic. Construction emissions from vehicular exhaust would result from the movement and operation of vehicles related to construction activities. Emissions would be generated by both off -site and on -site activities. Off -site emission producing activities include construction work crews traveling to and from the work site. They also include on -road emissions from delivery trucks and dump trucks in addition to locomotive emissions from freight deliveries. Onsite emission producing activities include the operation of off -road construction machinery and vehicles. Pollutants of interest with respect to construction exhaust emissions include: CO, NOx, ROC, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and CO2. To assess construction emissions, daily average emissions were calculated for all construction activities. These emissions were then compared to the SCAQMD daily construction emission pollutant thresholds shown in Table 4.3- 11 of the EIR. Table 4.3-1 1 demonstrates that, based upon the cumulative evaluation of the 18 reasonable worst -case construction day, the construction of the Project would not result in exceedances of the SCAQMD CEQA daily construction emission limits. Significant adverse impacts therefore would not occur. Even so, in accordance with existing air quality regulations, the following Best Management Practices ("BMP") will be implemented to control localized emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-23 to 4.3-28): • BMP AQ-1: All land clearing/earth-moving activity areas will be watered to control dust as necessary to remain visibly moist during active operations. • BMP AQ-2: Streets will be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently than hourly, if visible soils have been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. • BMP AQ-3: Construction equipment will be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt will be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. • BMP AQ-4: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. • BMP AQ-5: Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads will not exceed 5 mph. • BMP AQ-6: All equipment will be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. • BMP AQ-7: Contractors will maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would have their engines turned off when not in use, to reduce vehicle emissions. • BMP AQ-8: Establish an on -site construction equipment staging area and construction worker parking lots, located on either paved surfaces or unpaved surfaces subject to soil stabilization. • BMP AQ-9: Use electricity from power poles, rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators. • BMP AQ-10: Use on -site mobile equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e., ultra -low sulfur diesel, methanol, natural gas, propane or butane). • BMP AQ-11: Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes, but is not limited to: (l) consolidating truck deliveries (2) utilizing the existing rail freight line for materials delivery. 19 • BMP AQ-12: Construction grading on days when the wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour would be prohibited to control fugitive dust. Overall, Riverside County and the study corridor are forecasted to have substantial increases in population and employment over the coming decades. The general result of such growth would be increased travel on the existing roadway network, demand for additional capacity on those existing facilities, demand for new roadways, as well as additional demand for transit services. The cumulative impacts of increased transportation demands would likely be degradation of air quality as the volume of travel continues to expand, conversion of land use from agriculture/vacant to residential and commercial development, a corresponding reduction of habitats as land uses change, and increased demands on public facilities. The Project would help reduce these impacts as it would reduce some long-distance trips now made by cars resulting in a corresponding improvement in air quality. Indeed, the introduction of commuter rail service provides an ongoing opportunity for reducing vehicular trips. The proposed rail service would result in a net decrease in CO, ROC, and SOx emissions. In addition, SCRRA/Metrolink will be replacing engines over time and the next generation trains would meet USEPA Stage III requirements, which have up to 40% lower emissions characteristics than the current fleet. As these new engines are incorporated into the fleet, air quality benefits would increase. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-23 to 4.3-27.) 3. Criteria Pollutants (Threshold 4.3-3): The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment under any applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and thus no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-28 to 29.) Threshold 4.3-3 asks whether the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant in a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Table 4.3-12 of the EIR (on page 4.3-28) shows the air quality impacts that would occur during operation of the proposed Project. The Project would result in decreased emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, SOx PM 2.5 and PM 10 . Nitrogen oxide emissions would increase, but the increase would be less than significant. With the reductions in these pollutants, the Project would produce a cumulative net benefit to the region's air quality. Also, as passenger rail ridership increases over time and the diesel engines continue to meet EPA's more stringent emission standards, there would be ongoing and increasing air quality benefits. Moreover, the Project is included in SCAG's 2008 Adopted RTIP (Project ID RIV520109), which indicates that the Project's operational emissions meet the transportation conformity requirements imposed by USEPA and SCAQMD. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-28 to 29.) The Air Quality Technical Report B in Appendix E contains a more detailed analysis. 4. Sensitive Receptors (Threshold 4.3-4): The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-29 to 31.) Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For the Project, the sensitive receptors closest to the alignment are: Highland Elementary School, 20 Highland Park, UC-Riverside Child Development Center, Hyatt Elementary School, Nan Sanders Elementary School, and the City of Perris Senior Center. An analysis of the potential for impact to sensitive receptors is performed in circumstances where CO pollution could be expected to occur, such as at parking facilities where extensive idling could occur and at intersections where a large volume of automobiles and trucks could be expected. None of these sensitive receptors are located near the intersections that are projected to have the most potential for future congestion (see also the traffic analysis in Chapter 4.11 of the EIR). In addition, these receptors would not be close to any of the proposed parking lots. The CO hot spot analysis evaluated the potential impacts to these sensitive receptors and calculated the pollutant concentrations. Generally, pollutant concentrations decrease as distance from the pollutant source to a receptor increases. Therefore, because analysis determined that there would be a less than significant impact at the sensitive receptors closest to the congested intersection, impacts to receptors located further away from these intersections (such as the sensitive receptors listed above) would also be less than significant and would not require analysis. Because none of the specific sensitive receptors would be near any of the congested intersections, impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-29 to 31.) An HRA of sensitive receptors near the proposed PVL station parking lots was also conducted. The HRA identified residential receptors located close to the proposed station parking lots. Specifically, the parking lot for the proposed commuter rail station at Palmyrita Avenue (one of the Hunter Park Station options) would be located approximately 35 meters (115 feet) south and east of residences, while the Downtown Perris Station would be located approximately 65 meters (215 feet) east of a row of homes. At these locations, where receptor distances are nearest to the pollutant source, the proposed station parking lots will not generate significant CO concentrations, and any impact would be less than significant. Other receptors located even farther away (such as St. James Catholic School and Perris Elementary School in Perris) would also experience less than significant impacts. A health risk assessment for diesel emission from PVL locomotive operations was also considered. Air quality modeling was conducted to predict maximum concentrations of air toxic pollutants. The resulting health risk assessment indicated that the "health risk" to sensitive receptors within the Project corridor would be substantially below the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the potential health risk from train operations would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-29 to 31.) As shown in the Tables 4.3-7, 4.3-8, 4.3-9, 4.3-10, 4.3-11, and 4.3-12 of the EIR, the potential Project -related emissions are below all established thresholds of significance for pollutant concentrations and health risk assessments and no potentially significant impact will occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-29 to 31.) 5. Odors (Threshold 4.3-5): The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and thus impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The emissions related with this Project are odorless and thus the level of Project -related odors is less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-31.) 21 D. Biological Resources 1. Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife (Threshold 4.4-4): The SJBL is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage Nos. 7 and 19 as identified in the Western Riverside County MSHCP ("WRCMSHCP"). As concerns Proposed Constrained Linkage No. 7, species identified in this linkage would continue to cross the ROW as they have done previously when the PVL was in place and, considering the Project improvements proposed for this area, there is no impact to the continued use of the corridor by the identified species and no mitigation is necessary. There will be minor short-term impacts to Proposed Constrained Linkage No. 19 resulting from the replacement of two rail bridges; however, these impacts would be less than significant as demonstrated in RCTC's equivalency analysis contained in its Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation ("DBESP") submitted to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ("WRCRCA"). (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4- 24 to 25.) The Project is not located in an area where native, or migratory, fish are located and therefore fish would not be impacted by the Project. However, the MSHCP does identify Cores and Linkages for wildlife species within western Riverside County. The Linkages are considered wildlife corridors connecting the identified Core areas. Since the SJBL is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 19, there is a concern that the Project has a potential to impact the continued use of these wildlife corridors. (Ibid.) Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 is located south of the Box Springs Mountain Reserve area. The only proposed Project work in this area is the rehabilitation of the existing track, and minor improvements to existing culverts, with no new improvements proposed. The existing track configuration in this area is on a raised track bed, and has not changed in the preceding 100 years since the SJBL was initially constructed. This area is also located near the 1-215/60. The species that may use this Linkage are bird species and bobcat. These species would continue to cross the ROW as they have done previously when the PVL is in place. Based on the Project improvements proposed for this area, there is no impact to the continued use of this corridor by the identified species, and therefore no mitigation is necessary. (Ibid.) It should be noted that there is mitigation proposed within the noise section of the EIR to extend a noise barrier, within the ROW, from Mount Vernon Avenue towards Box Springs Mountain Reserve area. This noise barrier is proposed to reduce the train noise impacts to the residential homes adjacent to the Reserve boundary, north of the ROW. With implementation of this mitigation measure, no impact to the continued use of the Linkage 7 will occur because the noise barrier would be located adjacent to the residential homes and not impact the open areas of the Box Springs Mountain Reserve area, (Ibid.) There is also a landscape wall proposed for the Hyatt School area. Hyatt School is located within Linkage 7 and concurrently has fencing separating the school property from the ROW. The landscape wall would replace this fence and therefore not create a new impediment to the Linkage. Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 is located at the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel area. The proposed Project work in this area is the replacement of the two rail bridges. The replacement bridges are designed to allow the same volume of water beneath them and would therefore continue to allow for wildlife movement under the existing 22 bridges when the water is not present. It should also be noted that this Project is not making any changes outside of the existing ROW, and therefore the existing Case Road Bridge will not change as a result of this Project. (Ibid.) Bridge replacement will require construction equipment to work adjacent to and within the existing channels. This equipment will be removed from the channels at the conclusion of every work day. Nighttime wildlife travel in the river channel can continue unimpeded both during and after construction. Additionally, it should be noted that there is no ROW fencing in this area so wildlife may continue to cross the ROW without physical barriers. Once construction is complete the new bridges will have greater clearance underneath than the existing and therefore have fewer impediments within the Linkage area. (Ibid.) 2. Local Policies Regarding Biological Resources (Threshold 4.4-5): Project will not have a negative impact on local policies protecting biological species (other than the MSHCP discussed elsewhere in these Findings and in the EIR) and thus no impact will result. There are no local policies or ordinances in effect within the County of Riverside, the City of Riverside, or the City of Perris, other than the Western Riverside County MSHCP ("WRCMSHCP") and the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan ("SKR HCP") that protect and address biological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-25.) The Project would not have an adverse impact on such policies or plans. (See ibid.) 3. Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan (Threshold 4.4-6): The Project area is within the boundaries of the WRCMSHCP ("MSHCP"), and the Commission is a Permittee under the MSHCP. The Commission is therefore required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP for this Project. Consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP, RCTC submitted an application for a Joint Projects Review to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ("WRCRCA"). As part of that application process, RCTC prepared and submitted to the WRCRCA a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation ("DBESP"), Riparian/Riverine surveys, a burrowing owl survey and a Narrow Endemic Plant Survey. Based on the aforementioned surveys, RCTC demonstrated that the Project is consistent with the various provisions of the MSHCP, including the Riparian/Riverine and Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines, and that the Project would not have negative impacts on Constrained Linkage 7 or any other resources within the MSHCP criteria area. The Project is also within the SKR HCP fee area, although it is outside the SKR Core Reserve. Accordingly, a series of species and habitat surveys were performed along the entire Project route in order to assess the potential for SKR and their habitat. (Draft EIR Technical Report E, Revised Habitat Assessment Report (2009) at § 4.1.) No SKR were found in any of those surveys. (Id. at § 5.2.) Nonetheless, and as set forth in Mitigation Measure BR - 14, RCTC will voluntarily pay the SKR HCP mitigation fee as set forth in Threshold 4.4-1 below. In sum, the proposed Project would not conflict with any established Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-22, 25.) 23 E. Geology And Soils 1. Seismic Hazards (Threshold 4.6-1) Surface Rupture: No known faults intersect the existing rail corridor and thus the Project would not expose people or structures to a potentially significant impact related to surface fault rupture. According to the 2007 Interim Revision to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (CGS, 2007), western Riverside County is a seismically active region. The Project boundaries themselves are not within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. The northern portion of the PVL corridor is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the San Jacinto fault zone, while the southern portion of the corridor is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the Elsinore fault zone. Because no known faults intersect the existing rail corridor, implementation of the PVL commuter rail service would not expose people or structures to adverse effects related to surface fault rupture. Therefore, there would be no impacts from a known earthquake fault. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-15 to 16.) Seismic Ground Shaking: The Project does not intersect fault zones and there would not be any potentially significant impact resulting from strong seismic shaking and no mitigation is required. According to the 2007 Interim Revision to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (CGS, 2007), western Riverside County is a seismically active region. The Project boundaries themselves are not within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. The northern portion of the PVL corridor is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the San Jacinto fault zone, while the southern portion of the corridor is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the Elsinore fault zone. Because no known faults intersect the existing rail corridor, implementation of the PVL commuter rail service would not expose people or structures to adverse effects related to surface fault rupture. Therefore, there would be no impacts from a known earthquake fault. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16.) Ground failure and Liquefaction: Parts of the Project are in areas that are subject to high potential for liquefaction, but the implementation of industry recommendations for design and construction activities would make impacts less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. Portions of the rail corridor are in areas subject to high potential for liquefaction. Those areas particularly susceptible include the vicinity of the MARB and the proposed March Field/Moreno Valley Station. Project elements including track, and stations would be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and methods per the CBC, County of Riverside, the National Engineering Handbook, current AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. These industry recommendations will be followed during design and construction activities at the proposed March Field/Moreno Valley Station. Therefore, there would be no impacts for seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16.) Landslides: One area of the Project is highly susceptible to seismically induced landslides, but limited track work is proposed for this area. The remainder of the Project is considered to have low landslide potential, and moreover, engineering and design elements of the Project would comply with industry standards and thus impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Safety Element of the Riverside County General Plan indicates that the northern portion of the PVL corridor adjacent to the Box Springs Mountain 24 Reserve is highly susceptible to seismically induced landslides (Riverside County, 2003). Limited track work relating to construction is proposed for this area; therefore, there would be less than significant impacts during the construction of the PVL. Moreover, while the steep terrain around Box Springs may be subject to rock fall, igneous tonolite and granodiorite bedrock generally is not susceptible to landslides. Therefore, the PVL corridor is considered to have a low landslide potential (Kleinfelder, 2009). Engineering and design would comply with CBC, Riverside County Building and Safety Department Code, the National Engineering Handbook, AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Because of engineering recommendations before and during construction, there would be no impacts during the operations and maintenance of this within the PVL corridor. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16.) 2. Soil Erosion (Threshold 4.6-2): The Project would implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which would reduce or eliminate soil loss, and thus impacts would not be significant and mitigation is not required. Because the PVL commuter rail service would be implemented within an existing railroad corridor and adjacent properties, earth moving activities would be limited to the construction of the proposed stations and associated parking lots, communication equipment shelters and towers, and Layover Facility. Site preparation and excavation activities associated with construction of the new facilities may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil because of local precipitation and runoff. In accordance with the requirements of the SWRCB, which administers the State's construction stormwater program, the Project, which will disturb more than one acre of soil, must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit [CGP]). The CGP requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce or eliminate soil loss. The SWPPP would identify BMPs to minimize erosion and sediment loss. SWPPP requirements are discussed in the Hydrology/Water Quality section of the report. (see Draft EIR, Section 4.8.2). With implementation of a Project -specific SWPPP, there would not be a potential for a significant impact regarding soil erosion. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-16 to 17.) 3. Geologic Hazards (Threshold 4.6-3): The Project would not have any impact regarding subsidence as it is not located within the "Documented Area of Subsidence." Also, the Project's conformance with industry standards for engineering and construction -related activities would make impacts less than significant as concerns landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction and collapse. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-17.) The underlying geology of the PVL corridor extends through three geologic units. The northern portion of the corridor, which includes the Citrus Connection, and Hunter Park Station options, to the I-215/SR 60 interchange, is underlain by foliated or fractured igneous rocks. A portion of the PVL corridor extending south from the I-215/SR-60 interchange is underlain by Pleistoceneage, fine-grained unconsolidated to moderately consolidated sediments. The San Jacinto River and its vicinity is made up of Holocene -age, fine-grained unconsolidated alluvial sediments, including stream channel, floodplain, alluvial fan, and lacustrine sediments. Collapse typically occurs in recent soils, such as Holocene deposits. The PVL corridor is not located within the "Documented Area of Subsidence," based on a review of the County of Riverside Subsidence Map, and therefore, there would be no impact regarding subsidence for the Project. Project elements including track, bridges, and stations will be designed in accordance with appropriate industry standards, including established engineering and construction practices and 25 methods per the CBC, County of Riverside, the National Engineering Handbook, current AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Because of the industry standards for engineering, and guidance recommendations before and during construction, there would be no impact during the operations and maintenance of this within the PVL corridor. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-17.) 4. Expansive Soils (Threshold 4.6-4): Expansive soils are present along the SJBL alignment, but compliance with industry standards for engineering will result in less than significant impacts and mitigation is not required. Soils within the Project corridor and the proposed station locations are generally well -drained sandy loams, which do not tend to be expansive. However, expansive soils (Willow series) are present along the SJBL alignment in the area around both San Jacinto River bridges and South Perris Station. Changes in soil volumes due to shrink -swell potential could result in adverse impacts to buildings at these locations. Impacts from expansive soils associated with the Project in the vicinity of the San Jacinto River and proposed South Perris Station are reduced to no impact by engineering design based on site - specific geotechnical and geologic analysis along the PVL corridor. Construction of the Project, including portions of the SJBL alignment, both bridges and South Perris Station will comply with CBC, Riverside County Building and Safety Department Code, the National Engineering Handbook, AREMA guidance documents, and SCRRA standards. Because of the industry standards for engineering, and guidance recommendations during design and construction, there would be no impact during the operations and maintenance of this within the PVL corridor. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-17.) 5. Septic Systems (Threshold 4.6-5): The Project will not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and thus there is no impact here. A proposed wastewater connection is proposed at the Layover Facility and thus no septic tanks or alternative disposal systems are involved in this Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-18.) F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1. Conflict with Applicable Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Threshold 4.3- 2): The Project will reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and thus reduce the amount of CO2, which is the most abundant GHG in the Project area, and which also indicates a reduction in the less prominent exhaust -based GHGs. The Project will not result in a potentially significant impact by the generation of GHGs and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-21 to 23.) The most prevalent contributors to the greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 03, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CO2 is the GHG most closely linked to passenger car and light truck emissions, and recent studies have shown that CO2 accounted for approximately 84 percent of total GHG emissions in California (California Energy Commission, 2006). Since CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the Project area, it is assumed that a reduction in CO2 will indicate a reduction in the less prominent GHGs. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-21 to 23.) Because climate change is a global effect, it is difficult to ascertain the effects from an individual Project. Indeed, according to a recent paper by the Association of Environmental Professionals (Hendrix and Wilson, 2007), an individual Project does not generate enough GHGs 26 to significantly influence global climate change, and thus global climate change is a cumulative effect. However, for this Project, some baseline quantification of the opportunity to switch from private vehicle to the PVL was prepared to demonstrate the regional benefits that would accrue with the PVL. (Ibid.) The CO2 emissions from the operation of the diesel locomotives is estimated based on national usage data for commuter rail and compared to the reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from the diverted ridership to the PVL. In 2009, CEQA included a new section to its guidelines for determining the significance of GHGs (State CEQA Guidelines §15064.4), which accounts for the lack of an established method for the calculation of GHGs and allows for the use of a qualitative assessment to evaluate GHGs, which is the type of evaluation performed for this Project. The results of the assessment are shown in Table 4.3-10 of the Draft EIR. The existing and future vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projections for the proposed Project were not available. Therefore, an approximation of reduced VMT (see the Air Quality Technical Report B, Appendix E) was calculated based on the assumption that the proposed PVL service would replace the single passenger vehicles driving from South Perris to Riverside to connect to the existing rail service. The diversion from private car use to PVL ridership is estimated to reduce VMT by approximately 34 million miles per year in the Project area. This estimate includes vehicle miles traveled from private homes to the proposed stations. Based on emission factors from EMFAC2007 in the Project operation year of 2012, the reduction in VMT was calculated to result in decreased CO2 emissions of about 160,000 lbs per day. As CO2 is the most abundant GHG found in automobile emissions, a reduction in CO2 indicates a reduction in the less prominent exhaust based GHGs. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed PVL Project operations would increase the GHG burden in the region, but would likely result in a quantifiable reduction in GHG. (Ibid.) G. Hazards And Hazardous Materials 1. Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials (Threshold 4.7-1): During construction, the Project would involve the use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials and the use of such substances will be governed by existing regulations and thus would not adversely affect construction workers or the public. Also, no hazardous materials will be transported as part of the Project, which concerns a commuter rail service. The Project will not have a potentially significant impact relative to hazardous materials and no mitigation is required. Construction activities associated with the Project would involve the use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, but the use of these substances is governed by existing hazardous materials regulations and would not adversely affect on -site construction workers or the public. As a commuter rail line, PVL service is passenger only. As such, there would never be an occasion when hazardous materials would be transported on commuter trains. Any such materials incidental to construction and operational activities, including routine maintenance, would be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with existing federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations, and would not adversely affect on -site construction workers or the public. Each communication equipment shelter within the PVL corridor would contain a 250 -gallon propane AST. Several arrays of batteries containing regulated heavy metals would also be located within the equipment shelters. 27 The propane tanks would be used to operate emergency generators in the equipment shelters. Each of the tanks would be mounted on a concrete pad and permitted through the RCDEH. The ASTs would also be included in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the PVL Project, which is kept on file with RCDEH. The storage and use of the heavy metals is regulated by federal, state, and county hazardous materials regulations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-11 to 12.) The proposed Layover Facility would include portable track pans at each track to catch drips during emergency fueling. Routine fueling of the trains will not take place within the PVL Project corridor. Regular or routine fueling will occur outside of the Project area. An SWPPP will be prepared and put into place during the construction of the entire Project, including the Layover Facility. As part of the Construction General Permit (CGP) requirements, the SWPPP will also include BMPs to minimize the potential for leaks and spills during operations. (Ibid.) Impacts will therefore be less than significant. 2. Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials (Threshold 4.7-2): The small volume of hazardous materials that would be used in compliance with existing regulations, and the design criteria of the Project, means that impacts resulting from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions relative to the release of hazardous materials will be less than significant. Construction and operation activities will involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials, but the materials would be used in compliance with existing regulations and thus no potentially significant impacts will occur. Also, The pipelines located within the existing rail ROW were installed in accordance with the safety requirements of the owners. The pipelines are buried at a minimum of three feet below ground surface, or deeper if they are closer than 40 feet to the rail line, and/or are encased. There have been no reported leaks from the previously mentioned pipelines within or adjacent to the PVL corridor. There would not be an adverse affect on the environment, on -site workers, or the public during operation and maintenance of the PVL trains in these areas. Therefore, there will be less than significant impacts through the implementation of the Project from these pipelines. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-12 to 13.) Derailment could cause an accidental spill from the SCRAA/Metrolink train engines or diesel fuel tanks. However, the derailment risk is extremely low risk. Statistics discussed in the EIR and the PVL track improvements made to the latest standards, as dictated by FRA and SCRAA/Metrolink design criteria, will further decrease the risk of derailment potential. SCRAA/Metrolink would also regularly inspect the track to ensure safe operating conditions. (Ibid.) Moreover, in response to a number of concerns raised regarding a possible derailment, the Master Responses to Comments, as incorporated herein, further addressed the risk of a derailment. As explained in the Master Responses, a derailment generally may include one of the following; a train leaving the tracks, just one set of wheels leaving the tracks, side swiping another train, or general damage to a train while on the tracks. Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, in the Draft EIR (discussed above) addressed derailment statistics that were calculated for the PVL project based on data up to fiscal year 2006/2007. This section stated that, based on information obtained from the FRA Safety Database ([http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/]) and local resident information, there were 4.5 million freight train miles on SCRRA tracks since 1993, and that there have only been three 28 freight train derailments. This equates to approximately one derailment per 1.5 million train miles or 0.000000667. In contrast, the derailment risk for BNSF freight trains on the SJBL alignment is 0.00801, which equates to a derailment approximately once every 124 years. Since the Draft EIR was submitted to the public for review, additional statistics were calculated for fiscal year 2007/2008. This updated data also computes the derailment exposure risk on SCRRA's lines and then compares this risk to the estimated risk currently experienced by the SJBL with freight only. First, the SCRRA had 455,684 freight train miles operated over their lines in fiscal year 2007/2008, and this is assumed to be typical of operations since the start of SCRRA operations. This yields a freight history of about 6.8 million freight train miles since 1993 (first full year of operation). There have been three main track freight train derailments (not counting the collision at Chatsworth). Second, this calculates to an exposure ratio of about one derailment per 2.28 million train miles or 0.00000044. Third, the BNSF operated 11,440 freight train miles on the SJBL in fiscal year 2007/2008, and this rate of train miles has been consistent over the years. Since 1993, this would total 171,600 train miles. Fourth, the annual future (after completion of the project) freight train derailment risk is then the product of 0.00000044 (risk per train mile) and 11,440 annual train miles, or 0.00502. Fifth, assuming that there have been two freight train derailments on the main line of the PVL since 1993, the risk is two divided by 171,600 (the total train miles BNSF has operated since 1993) or 0.0000116 per train mile. These calculations show that the SCRRA derailment risk is 0.00000044, while the BNSF freight train derailment risk is 0.0000116. The reason for this difference is that, because the SCRRA tracks are used for commuter rail, the tracks are maintained to high standards of safety and ride quality due to their role in public passenger transport. The PVL project includes track improvements throughout its length because a commuter train would be added to the track (see Draft EIR, Section 4.2.1). These track improvements would upgrade the existing physical condition of the rail line, which would result in a stronger infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, and enhanced operational safety. Therefore, not constructing the PVL project poses a much higher risk of freight train derailment exposure than constructing the project would. As the Master Response further explains, the commenters also brought up a third derailment in BNSF history, which occurred in 1990 near Hyatt Elementary School. Since the derailment occurred outside of the 17 -year window of SCRRA experience, it was not included in the analyses. However, even if it were included in the derailment calculations, it would increase the freight train risk factor, further strengthening the argument that the PVL project is a benefit to the community. Therefore, the analysis in the Draft EIR is correct - there are no significant impacts and no mitigation is required. The Draft EIR was changed to further clarify this issue. No additional analysis was required and no additional mitigation measures were added. 3. Hazardous Materials Near Schools (Threshold 4.7-3): The Project would not have the potential for a significant impact relative to the generation of hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of a school or a proposed school and no mitigation is required. Construction activities associated with the Project, near the schools, would involve the use of small volumes of commercially available hazardous materials, such as petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, and other oils), brake fluids, coolants, and paints. The use of these substances is governed by existing hazardous materials regulations. The construction of the Project would not include power lines or propane tanks within a 1,500 -foot setback of the schools, nor would the 29 Project introduce newly constructed high pressure natural gas lines or gasoline lines. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-13.) The Air Quality section of the EIR notes that sensitive receptor sites, including schools are near mobile source emissions generated from freight trains using the SJBL, and from vehicles using the adjacent SR -60 and I-215 corridors. It is also noted that most PVL trains would pass by the schools either prior to the beginning of the school day or after the end of the day, resulting in less potential exposure to emissions. Simultaneously, vehicle emissions would be reduced with a shift of modes from private vehicles to the PVL and other reductions in mobile source pollution through increased vehicular speeds on the major vehicular corridors. Using the available interim guidance from the FHWA, the Project is categorized as having low potential emission effects. (Ibid.) Exposure to MSATs as a risk to schools would result from the siting of a new fixed, continuously operating point source of pollution, such as a stack from a factory. With an engine and the proposed train sets for the PVL, exposure to PM10 in diesel exhaust from passing commuter trains would be limited. The trains would pass by schools very quickly, for only several seconds along the PVL between stations. For most PVL movements, schools would not be in session, as most scheduled runs occur either before the start of the school day or after its completion. Opportunity for exposure to emissions is limited in occurrence and duration and is therefore no impact. (Ibid.) Additionally, as further discussed in the Master Responses to Comments, which are incorporated by reference herein, the RCTC, in response to concerns raised about the proximity of the rail line to the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline, commissioned a focused technical study to specifically evaluate potential safety and/or hazard impacts associated with the pipeline. (Analysis of Safety Issues for the Proposed Commuter Rail Service on the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Perris Valley Line in the Vicinity of Highland and Hyatt Schools, dated March 22, 2011 (the "Zeta Tech Report")). The Zeta Tech report evaluated whether the addition of commuter rail to the existing line would significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of the Highland Elementary School and the Kinder -Morgan pipeline near the school (Zeta Tech Report, page 2). The derailment risk analysis examined general derailment risk as well as derailment risk specific to passenger trains in the context of a derailment energy analysis. The derailment energy analysis compared the maximum available energy at the time of derailment of a freight train to that of a passenger train on the Perris Valley Line (Zeta Tech Report, page 7). This analysis also took into account the mass of a given train as well as the speed of that train. Ultimately, the Zeta Tech Report concluded that the addition of commuter rail to the existing railway line would not significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of Highland Elementary School and the Kinder -Morgan pipeline near that school (Zeta Tech Report, page 7). Additionally, as further discussed in the Master Responses, incorporated herein, RCTC commissioned a focused technical study to specifically evaluate the potential risk of derailment that would result from the proposed project's addition of commuter trains to the existing Perris Valley Line. This study considered: (1) whether the addition of commuter rail to the existing line significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of the Highland Elementary School and the Kinder -Morgan pipeline near that school, and (2) whether the addition of commuter rail to 30 the existing line significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of Hyatt Elementary School. The Zeta Tech Report concluded that the addition of commuter rail to the existing railway line would not significantly increase the safety risks in the vicinity of Highland Elementary School and the Kinder -Morgan pipeline near that school (Zeta Tech Report, page 7). The Zeta Tech report also shows that the addition of commuter rail to the existing railway line does not significantly increase the derailment risk at or near Hyatt Elementary School. 4. Airport Hazards (Threshold 4.7-5): The PVL corridor and the Moreno Valley/March Field Station would be within the airport land use plan of the MARB. The Moreno Valley/March Field Station is within appropriate zoning uses and thus there is no impact. The PVL corridor and the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station are located west of I- 215 and MARB airport, and within the boundaries of the airport land use plan of MARB. The proposed station would be located predominantly within APZ II, which allows for industrial and transportation uses. As currently designed, a small southerly segment of the proposed parking lot associated with the station would be located in APZ I, which prohibits dense concentrations of people, but allows for parking lots (March JPA 2003). The Riverside County ALUC and the March JPA reviewed the Commission's application for the Project and the Riverside County ALUC determined that the Moreno Valley/March Field Station will be consistent with the airport land use plan subject to the following conditions: (1) prior to issuing building permits, the RCTC shall convey an avigation easement to the March Inland Port Airport Authority; (2) any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky, and outdoor lighting shall be downward facing; and (3) proscribing (i) any use that would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with aircraft operations toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach (other than an FAA - approved light source); (ii) any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft in flight; (iii) any use that would generate smoke or water vapor that would attract large numbers of birds or that could somehow affect safe air navigation within the area; (iv) any use that would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation; (v) children's schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and highly noise sensitive outdoor residential uses; (4) any ground -level or aboveground water retention or detention basin or facilities shall be designed to provide for a detention period for a storm that does not exceed 48 hours and must remain totally dry between rain events, nor can no landscaping with vegetation that would attract birds and that would be incompatible with airport operations, landscaping must utilize plant species that do not produce seeds, fruits or berries, and trees must be spaced to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy when mature; and (5) any proposed use identified on the site plan as a future use shall be reviewed by ALUC for consistency when proposed for a specific development. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15 to 16.) 5. Private Airstrip Hazards (Threshold 4.7-6): The Project is within the Perris Valley Airport Influence Area, however the only restriction in the Influence Area pertains to residential development for safety purposes. The implementation of the Project will, therefore, not result in a safety hazard to the people residing or working near to the airstrip and Project impacts will be less than significant. 31 The Perris Valley Airport is located immediately south of Ellis Avenue and southwest of Case Road, approximately 500 feet southwest from the existing rail corridor. The airport is largely used for skydiving. The PVL corridor lies within the Perris Valley Airport Influence Area, from west of Goetz Road, along SJBL, to just east of Murrieta Road, including the South Perris Station. In this Influence Area, only residential uses "are to be limited to areas not in the actual flight path and to areas where aircraft have gained sufficient altitude so as to no longer pose a relative safety threat" (City of Perris, 2005). Implementation of the PVL will not result in a safety hazard for any people residing or working in the Project area. The Perris Valley Airport is currently drafting a land use plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-16 to 17.) The Riverside County ALUC has reviewed RCTC's application to ensure zone compatibility. The ALUC determined that the South Perris Station will be consistent with airport land use plan subject to the following conditions: (1) prior to issuing building permits, the RCTC shall convey an avigation easement to the March Inland Port Airport Authority; (2) any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky, and outdoor lighting shall be downward facing; and (3) proscribing (i) any use that would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with aircraft operations toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach (other than an FAA -approved light source); (ii) any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft in flight; (iii) any use that would generate smoke or water vapor that would attract large numbers of birds or that could somehow affect safe air navigation within the area; (iv) any use that would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation; (v) children's schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and highly noise sensitive outdoor residential uses; (4) any ground -level or aboveground water retention or detention basin or facilities shall be designed to provide for a detention period for a storm that does not exceed 48 hours and must remain totally dry between rain events, nor can no landscaping with vegetation that would attract birds and that would be incompatible with airport operations, landscaping must utilize plant species that do not produce seeds, fruits or berries, and trees must be spaced to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy when mature; and (5) structure height shall not exceed 40 feet, and no structure shall be located less than 3,841 feet from any point on the centerline of the runway at Perris Valley Airport unless the Federal Aviation Administration has first issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for said structure. (Ibid.) H. Hydrology/Water Quality 1. Water Quality Standards (Threshold 4.8-1): The Project would implement BMPs, to the extent necessary, to ensure that no water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are violated and thus impacts will be less than significant without mitigation. The Citrus Connection would use small quantities of wheel lubricators (to reduce squeal) in a small area and will not contribute to local runoff pollution. This portion of the Project would not violate water quality standards. The SJBL alignment primarily involves an upgrade of existing tracks and culverts, and will not appreciably change from existing conditions and will therefore not result in a water quality violation. A bypass track is also to be constructed, but the construction, operation, and maintenance of the bypass would be same as existing conditions and no impacts will result. The relative small size of the Stations would not create a surface large 32 enough to create a significant amount of runoff that would affect water quality. However, operation and maintenance of the Stations' parking lots could create polluted runoff and thus the Commission will install structural BMPs to ensue any pollutants are properly contained. BMPS may include catch basin inserts and oil/water separators that would stop debris, oil, and other pollutants from entering the MS4s. The addition of the BMPs will ensure that water quality standards are not violated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-10 to 12.) It is anticipated that up to four trains would be stored in the Layover Facility overnight. Drip pans will be installed to catch any fuel, lubrication, or other liquids coming from the engines. The train inspection pit will also contain an oil/water separator to ensure treatment prior to drainage into an MS4. Overall, BMPs will be implemented to ensure that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Layover Facility does not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. As a result, no impacts will occur. (Ibid.) Construction of the bridges will take place during the summer when the San Jacinto River and San Jacinto River Overflow Channel are dry. Equipment storage, fueling, and construction staging areas would be located to minimize risks of waste discharge and water contamination, and the Project -specific SWPPP would identify proper BMPs to control any pollutants. The bridge replacement would therefore not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. (Ibid.) 2. Groundwater (Threshold 4.8-2): The Project does not involve groundwater resources and thus impacts would be less than significant. The proposed PVL Project involves upgrading the existing rail corridor, and adding four stations and a Layover Facility. The approximate maximum depth of excavation at the proposed stations and Layover Facility is 14 feet below existing grade. Dewatering is not anticipated because groundwater is greater than 50 feet in the Project area. No groundwater resources would be needed for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the PVL Project. Additionally, it should be noted that the paved areas at the stations and Layover Facility would not interfere with groundwater recharge because of the very small size compared to the overall watershed area. Therefore, the PVL Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with existing groundwater resources and thus a potentially significant impact will not result. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-11 to 12.) 3. Drainage and Erosion (Threshold 4.8-3): The Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, including through the alteration of a stream or river, and thus impacts will be less than significant. Citrus Connection: The current BNSF and SJBL alignments traverse the Springbrook Wash. The proposed Citrus Connection track would be located north of the Wash, on disturbed vacant land. The approximately 2,000 feet of new track proposed for the Citrus Connection would connect the two existing alignments, the BNSF and SJBL, south of where they currently connect. Although the track will be new in this area, the drainage patterns will not substantially change. Current drainage is via sheet flow off the vacant land and into Springbrook Wash. With the installation of the new track, the sheet flow will be slowed by the track but water will be allowed to percolate through the ballast rock prior to reaching Springbrook Wash. Because the new construction would not alter drainage patterns, impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-12.) 33 SJBL Alignment: The existing drainage pattern of the Project area currently includes the SJBL alignment. Since the construction, operation, and maintenance of this alignment would primarily upgrade the existing tracks, selected culverts, and bridges, proposed development within this segment of the PVL corridor would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. The bypass track would be built adjacent to the existing SJBL tracks with an extension of the existing culverts. This bypass track would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Impacts will thus be less than significant. (Ibid.) Stations: The Station are all proposed to be constructed on previously disturbed land that does not contain defined drainage patterns. The Stations, including the associated parking structures, are designed to direct local drainage into catch basins that connect into the local MS4. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.) Layover Facility: The proposed Layover Facility would be constructed on previously disturbed land that does not contain defined drainage patterns. The Layover Facility is designed to direct local drainage into local catch basins that connect into the MS4. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.) 4. Drainage and Runoff (Threshold 4.8-4): The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, including the alteration of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff, and thus impacts are less than significant. Citrus Connection: The current BNSF and SJBL alignments traverse the Springbrook Wash. However, the proposed Citrus Connection track will not affect the existing drainage pattern. The approximately 2,000 feet of new track proposed for the Citrus Connection would serve to connect two existing alignments, the BNSF and SJBL south of where they currently connect. Overall, the operations and maintenance of the Citrus Connection would be the same as for the SJBL alignment. Since the proposed Citrus Connection would not be located in an area with a defined drainage pattern, the Citrus Connection would not substantially alter an existing drainage pattern or substantially increase the surface runoff in the site. Because the new construction would not alter existing drainage patterns, impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-13 to 14.) SJBL Alignment: The existing drainage pattern of the Project area currently includes the SJBL alignment. Since the construction, operation, and maintenance of this alignment would primarily upgrade the existing tracks, selected culverts, and bridges, proposed development within this segment of the PVL corridor would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. The bypass track would be built adjacent to the existing SJBL tracks with an extension of the existing culverts. This bypass track would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Impacts are therefore less than significant. (Ibid.) Stations: The Station locations are all proposed to be constructed on previously disturbed land that does not contain defined drainage patterns. The Stations, including the associated parking structures, are designed to direct local drainage into catch basins that connect into the local MS4. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.) 34 Layover Facility: The proposed Layover Facility would be constructed on previously disturbed land that does not contain defined drainage patterns such as streams or rivers. . The Layover Facility is designed to direct local drainage into local catch basins that connect into the MS4. The buildings planned for the Layover Facility will be raised off the ground approximately six feet. These raised structures will not create an impermeable surface large enough to significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding area. Parking lots for the Layover Facility would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the area because the paved lots do not allow for water infiltration. However, the Layover Facility is designed to direct local drainage into the MS4, which would control the surface runoff and avoid flooding on or off -site. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.) 5. Runoff (Threshold 4.8-5): The Project impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of BMPs, where necessary, to ensure that any runoff water would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and/or ensure sources of polluted runoff, if any, have no impact or a less than significant impact. SJBL Alignment: Along the SJBL alignment are existing drainage structures (culverts) that allow stormwater flow to pass beneath the railroad tracks. As part of the Project, the culverts that would be replaced or extended will continue to convey the local stormwater flow beneath the tracks. These rehabilitated culverts will allow the same amount of water to pass through the alignment as the old ones. Since the construction, operation, and maintenance of the SJBL alignment would upgrade the existing tracks and selected culverts, the increase in impervious area is limited. Therefore, the proposed development within this segment of the PVL corridor would not create additional runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Additionally, the increase of twelve trains per day would cause minor quantities of oil and lubricants to weep onto the track. These minor quantities are not great enough to cause a potentially significant increase in polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-14 to 15.) Stations: The relative small size of the station platforms will not create an impermeable surface large enough to significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding area. Operation and maintenance of the station parking lots would increase the amount of impermeable paved surfaces in the area. These surfaces would create additional runoff because the paved area does not allow for water infiltration. However, engineering designs for each station include the provision of stormwater detention when required. With these design elements in place, there will be sufficient capacity within the MS4s to support the Project. Oil and fluid leaks from parked cars would potentially be added to runoff water as it flows towards the local MS4s. However, the Commission will install structural BMPs, including catch basin inserts and oil/water separators that would stop debris, oil, and other pollutants from entering the MS4s. With the planned BMPs in place, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the stations would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to the MS4, and thus impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.) Layover Facility: The buildings planned for the Layover Facility will be raised off the ground by approximately six feet. These raised structures will not create an impermeable surface large enough to significantly contribute to runoff water in the surrounding area. The Layover Facility parking lots would increase the amount of impermeable paved surfaces in the area. This 35 surface would create additional runoff because the paved area does not allow for water infiltration. However, engineering designs for the Layover Facility include sizing the catch basins and local drainage structures to have capacity sufficient to accept the additional runoff. With these design elements in place, there will be sufficient capacity within the MS4s to support the Layover Facility. Oil and fluid leaks from parked cars would potentially be added to runoff water as it flows towards the local MS4s. the Commission would install structural BMPs, including catch basin inserts that would stop debris, oil, and other pollutants from entering the MS4s. With the planned BMPs in place, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Layover Facility would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to the MS4, and impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.) 6. Water Quality (Threshold 4.8-6): The Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality and impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Most of the PVL Project consists of an existing rail corridor. It is not anticipated that any new sources of pollutants would occur as a result of the proposed upgrades. Proposed new structures for the PVL Project are minimal, and drainage and pollutants would be managed with appropriate measures that comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, the PVL Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-15.) 7. Housing and 100 -Year Flood (Threshold 4.8-7): The Project would not involve housing and thus no impact will occur here. The Project would enhance transportation infrastructure by extending commuter rail service to additional portions of Riverside County and does not include the construction of housing. Therefore, no impacts will occur here. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-15.) 8. Structures and 100 -Year Flood (Threshold 4.8-8): The Project would not impede or redirect flows within a 100 -year flood hazard area and thus impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 to 19.) Ten FIRM panels were evaluated to identify flood designations and floodways including and proximate to the PVL corridor. Four of these FIRM panels were located in a 100 -year flood hazard area (FEMA, 2008). (See EIR Figures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2.) FIRM Panel 06065C0065G: The area of Springbrook Wash has a 100 -year flood Zone A designation. A small portion of the alignment, where the alignment passes over the Wash, between Spring Street and Citrus Street is within this high flood risk area. FIRM Panel 06065C0727G: A portion of the SJBL alignment at Blaine Street, within the UCR area, has a 100 -year flood Zone A designation. The floodplain boundary ends at the alignment and is identified east along Blaine Street and curves north at Valencia Hill Drive. Zone A has a high potential for flood risk. FIRM Panel 06065C0731G: The University Wash located in Islander Park of the UCR area has a 100 -year flood Zone AE designation. The floodplain boundary starts near Linden Street and is identified south to Big Springs Road, and is bounded by the alignment along the eastern boundary. Zone AE is a high risk area. 36 FIRM Panel 06065C 1440G: The area adjacent to the west side of the alignment at Metz Road has a 100 -year flood Zone A designation. This flood area is located in Metz Park within the City of Perris. Additionally, this panel includes the San Jacinto River and associated floodway. The floodplain boundary for the San Jacinto River is partially within a 100 -year flood area, which includes the railroad bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80). Both bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80) are mapped within the 6,600 -foot wide floodway. Extending from the floodway is a 12,000 -foot - wide floodplain boundary for the 100 -year event in Zone AE. The SJBL alignment, two bridges, the South Perris Station option, and the Layover Facility are portions of the PVL Project that are located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Based on the hydraulic analysis presented in the Perris Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report Volume II San Jacinto River Analysis report, it is expected that the bridges, rail alignment, station platform, station parking lot, and Layover Facility could be submerged as much as five feet during the 100 -year flood (AECOM, 2009). The SJBL alignment would not add new structures within the 100 -year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flows, and thus impacts would be less than significant here. The design plans for the bridges would be in compliance with the NFIP's No -Rise requirements, a No -Rise Certification would be obtained for the Project through the RCFCWCD, and thus the proposed bridges would not impede or redirect flows and impacts would be less than significant. The relative small size of the South Perris Station option would not create a surface that would significantly impede or redirect flows in a 100 -year flood area. Also, the South Perris Station option and Layover Facility would be in compliance with the NFIP's No -Rise requirements. Thus, the proposed structures at the South Perris Station option and Layover Facility would not impede or redirect flows and no impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 to 19.) 9. Dam Inundation (Threshold 4.8-9): The Project would not result in a potentially significant impact related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. During torrential rainfall or periods of extended rain, the storage capacity of Mystic Lake would be exceeded and overflow into the San Joaquin River. The River could swell and potentially flood the surrounding areas. Trains would not run if flooding occurs and thus commuters would not be exposed to flooding conditions along the SJBL alignment. Furthermore, development along the AJBL alignment involves upgrading existing tracks and would not expose new structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death. Trains would not run if flooding occurred in the PVL corridor and the employee support building within the Layover Facility would be raised by six feet to remain out of the 100 -year floodplain. People would therefore not be exposed to flooding. The raised structures, however, could be exposed to significant risk of loss involving flooding, but no impact would result relating to base flood elevations, regulatory floodway elevations, and floodway width according to the Perris Valley Line Draft Hydrology Report Volume II San Jacinto River Analysis, Layover Facility structures. Since Project design plans for the Layover Facility would be compliance with the NFIP's No -Rise requirements, and a No -Rise Certification would be obtained for the Project through the RCFCWCD. Therefore, the proposed Layover Facility would not expose structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, and no impacts are anticipated for this issue area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-20.) 37 10. Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow (Threshold 4.8-10): The Project will not increase the likelihood of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow and thus impacts will be less than significant. Because the PVL corridor is not located in close proximity to a coast or ocean, implementation of the proposed Project would not create or be subject to inundation by seiche, or tsunami. Additionally, the Project is on a rail corridor originally developed over 100 years ago. Since current rail operations will continue, and the commuter trains will not increase the current risk, the implementation of the PVL Project will not increase the likelihood of a mudflow. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-20.) I. Land Use And Planning 1. Division of Established Community (Threshold 4.9-1): The Project would not physically divide an established community and thus impacts would be less than significant. The SJBL was constructed in the 1880s, and many of the communities now located within the vicinity of the railroad were established as a result of the railway facilities (MFA, 2003). The Citrus Connection would be constructed in an area that is bordered to the south and west by industrial and transportation facilities and to the north and east by residential and commercial uses. The proposed Project would operate entirely within an existing rail corridor and its adjacent parcels will be in an area where the railroad facilities have long been part of the local community setting. Therefore, the Project would not restrict the movement of people or physically divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-9.) 2. Land Use Plan Consistency (Threshold 4.9-2): The Project is consistent with existing and planned land uses and is consistent with federal, state, and local land use plans and policies and thus impacts will be less than significant. The Project is located in western Riverside County and extends through or adjacent to several municipalities including the City of Riverside, the City of Moreno Valley, the March Air Reserve Base, the City of Perris, and Riverside County. Table 4.9-1 of the EIR provides an overview of the many land uses within and adjacent to the Project area. The Project would be consistent with existing and planned land uses and is consistent with the County, City, and Specific Plan policies. The Project is exempt from local land use controls and thus demonstration of compliance with local land use plans and policies is not required. However, as set forth below, County and City plans anticipate and support the Project (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-9 to 11): • The Riverside County General Plan promotes alternative transportation options within western Riverside County as a means for encouraging concentrated housing and employment centers, in order to reduce traffic congestion. Rail transit is envisioned as a travel option that can contribute to higher quality living environments by reducing auto dependency, concentrating compatible land uses, and relieving pressure to develop open space, and directing compatible land use activities to established urban centers. The PVL would be consistent with the alternative transportation goals outlined in this document. • The City of Riverside General Plan aims to encourage mass transit to reduce roadway congestion, air pollution, and non -point source water pollution. Land use planning 38 was structured to support this principle by directing new growth along transportation corridors. • The City of Riverside General Plan includes discussion of the PVL as the 22 -mile extension of the SCRRA/Metrolink 91 line. The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan focuses on incorporating "smart growth" principles into planning and development decisions, and focusing development in already urbanized parts of the City rather than spreading growth to the urban fringes. • The Hunter Business Park Specific Plan states that existing lead tracks and spurs serve established industrial plants, and it is the intent of the Specific Plan to accommodate rail usage where feasible in the designated Land Use Districts. The rail lines have historically supported facilities at the Hunter Business Park, and are maintained within the Specific Plan. The proposed station sites are within the Hunter Business Park, which is 1,300 -acre planning area that contains existing industrial/warehouse facilities, scattered agricultural parcels, and a public park (Hunter Park). According to the City of Riverside General Plan, the Hunter Business Park is planned for redevelopment and business/office buildings in order to serve as a relatively more active employment center, while the Hunter Business Park Specific Plan (City of Riverside, 2002) describes the location of the rail lines within this area as excellent opportunities to serve future industrial -transportation -distribution facilities. • The City of Moreno Valley General Plan's Circulation Element states that public transit in the city of Moreno Valley consists primarily of bus service. It is anticipated that Moreno Valley would have access to commuter rail service; specifically, a commuter rail station for the southwest quadrant of Alessandro at I-215 to serve Moreno Valley residents (City of Moreno Valley, 2006). The PVL would also be consistent with the City of Moreno Valley General Plan's Community Development Element, which encompasses the Land Use Plan of the City of Moreno Valley General Plan. The City of Moreno Valley General Plan Places Residential/Office and Commercial land uses within land located nearest to the PVL corridor. The properties are also identified as redevelopment areas, presumably to encourage economic growth. • The proposed commuter service to serve the March Planning Area would be consistent with the March JPA General Plan, and the March JPA would work with transit providers to ensure that transit programming is oriented to the Meridian area, which is outlined as an economic center. The Meridian Master Plan places a future transit center near the PVL, and similarly, the March Specific Plan places a 15 -acre transportation center to accommodate commuter rail service along the PVL corridor. The proposed station would be a permitted use. The March JPA General Plan identifies the PVL in its Transportation Element, and acknowledges the need for a multimodal facility to serve its planning area. It promotes the creation of adequate regional railway facilities, including the use of SCRRA/Metrolink service along the SJBL. 39 • The PVL would be consistent with the Mead Valley Area Plan (2003). The Mead Valley Area Plan identifies the SJBL as a viable regional transportation option for residents, employees, and visitors to the area. • Commuter rail service along the existing SJBL is consistent with the Land Use Element of the City of Perris General Plan, which recognizes the need for future transportation and infrastructure improvements. The specific plans for Green Valley, Riverglen, Perris Downtown and the Village Walk District have incorporated the SJBL by assigning compatible land uses adjacent to the rail corridor, including the future development of commuter rail station planned for the old Penis Depot area. The Downtown Specific Plan describes a pedestrian -friendly Downtown Promenade District of mixed uses, within walking distance of a train station. The Circulation Element specifically identifies the extension of SCRRA/Metrolink service along the SJBL. The use of the existing railway would be consistent with existing and planned land uses, and the implementation of commuter rail service through downtown Perris would be consistent with specific plan policies to enhance and preserve natural and man-made features, and to promote alternative transportation to reduce regional traffic congestion. 3. Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan (Threshold 4.9-3): The Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts with regard to the MSHCP and the SKR HCP, which are the two habitat conservation plans in effect in the Project area. The Project will not conflict with either the MSHCP or the SKR HCP. The Project is subject to the compliance requirements of the MSHCP, in particular the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in the MSHCP. (Draft E1R, pp. 4.9-11 to 13.) Furthermore, the Project will voluntarily pay SKR HCP fees to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Authority ("RCHCA") (Ibid.; see also Mitigation Measure BR -14.) SJBL Alignment: By complying with the Guidelines and coordinating with the RCA (responsible for the MSHCP) and the RCHCA (responsible for the SKR HCP), the Project will not conflict with any conservation or habitat goals relative to the implementation of the SJBL alignment. (Ibid.) Moreno Valley/March Field Station: Two noncontiguous wildlife reserves are in the vicinity of the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station. The SKR Sycamore Canyon — March Air Force Base Core Reserve (which coincides with Sycamore Canyon Park and the MSHCP Existing Core D) is located north and south of Alessandro Boulevard and west of the PVL corridor outside of the corridor and west of the Moreno Valley/March Field Station. Through compliance with the Guidelines and coordination with RCA and RCHCA, construction and operation of the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station option would not impair the value of wildlife habitat or cause an ecological intrusion into the nearby reserve areas. (Ibid.) South Perris Station and Layover Facility: MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 19 encompasses the San Jacinto River area, which is located approximately 500 feet west of the proposed South Perris Station. As previously described, the PVL Project is subject to the compliance requirements of the MSHCP, in particular its Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines, 40 which provide guidance on addressing the indirect effects on wildlife species when projects are located in proximity to reserve areas. Through compliance with the Guidelines and coordination with RCA, construction and operation of the proposed South Perris Station would not impair the value of wildlife habitat or cause an ecological intrusion of MSHCP Proposed Constrained Linkage 19. (Ibid.) J. Noise And Vibration 1. Temporary Noise Increase (Threshold 4.10-4): Project impacts resulting from temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-37 to 39.) The construction noise assessment indicates that construction activities would not result in any new significant noise impacts at any nearby noise -sensitive receptors. The conclusions of the construction noise assessment are based on the use of the FTA construction noise criteria and they apply to both day- and night-time construction activities. While no significant impacts would be predicted to occur, construction activities may result in temporary short-term increases in noise levels, not unlike those typical of common street and utility projects. However, given the linear configuration of the construction corridor, only small area segments would likely experience construction noise at any given time. Once grade crossing improvements along with the excavation and grading of the track base are completed, specialized track equipment would move continuously along the alignment constructing the new track. The export of soils from the Project site may also result in increased noise levels along roadways in the immediate Project area. However, because the amount of exported soils from each location along the PVL alignment is finite, the site vehicular access would change frequently as construction moves along the alignment. Therefore, any resulting noise increase would be temporary since no single roadway segment would be affected for more than a few weeks. According to the FTA manual, this would not constitute a long period of time for a construction -related activity and, thus, would not result in any impact. With respect to noise from the construction of the stations, only the proposed Downtown Perris Station would be located nearby noise sensitive receptors. However, station construction would only last approximately two months. Any potential increase in noise levels would be temporary in nature and would generally only occur between about 6 AM and 7 PM, Monday through Friday. The exact hours when Project construction would be allowed are restricted to the hours described in the local construction noise policies above for the individual localities. For all construction activities, standard construction noise control measures would be required to reduce the likelihood of any temporary noise increases. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-37 to 38.) Some night-time work may also have to occur, such as track realignment. This would require prior approval by the locality in which the night-time activity is to take place. (Ibid.) Although the overall length of construction for the entire PVL Project would be approximately 18 months, disturbances at individual receptor locations would not last for more than several months. Any potential construction noise impacts on schools and churches would be less than significant since Project construction noise levels would not surpass the FTA construction noise criteria levels. However, both sporadic and temporary increases in construction noise above local construction ordinance levels may occur. Any temporary increases would be based on potential occurrences of atypical events given the inconsistent and transitory nature of some construction activities and equipment usage. Consequently, the 41 contractor would use standard construction noise control measures such as temporary construction noise barriers, low noise emission equipment, and the use of acoustic enclosures or particularly noisy equipment to reduce the likelihood of any increases in construction noise above the local noise ordinance maximum levels. The longest sustained construction period near sensitive receptors would likely result from station construction and, as mentioned above, would last approximately two months. However, because of the relative small scale of a typical rail station, the use of heavy construction equipment would only occur during a short segment of that two month period. According to the PVL Construction Staging Plan, some nighttime construction is scheduled to occur specifically for new track layout. Because local codes allow construction only during day -time hours, any Project -related night-time construction activity would require the Project to obtain from the municipality written consent for an exemption, or variance to these codes. (Ibid.) For mobile construction activities, the delivery of construction materials, such as the rail, rail ties, ballast, and specialized track equipment, would be accomplished using the existing rail rather than being delivered by truck. Also, staging yards would be located strategically so as to limit the travel time for construction crews. These processes would serve to limit the exposure radius of traffic -related construction noise in sensitive areas. (Ibid.) The construction activity that would create the most noise and vibration is pile driving associated with the San Jacinto River bridge replacements, which are adjacent to the proposed Layover Facility. However, as there are no noise sensitive receptors located within approximately one mile of the proposed Layover Facility and the pile driving sites, construction - related noise impacts would not occur. In addition, pile driving would be temporary in nature, and any site specific pile driving would likely be completed in under a week. (Ibid.) Other locations along the alignment would also be potentially impacted by construction noise. To determine whether construction of the proposed PVL Project would result in any noise impacts to sensitive receptors at these locations, an FTA general assessment procedure for construction noise was conducted for a representative residential location at 228 C Street in Perris. This location was chosen because it would be representative of a property which would be affected by typical track laying construction represented by activities such as culvert modifications and embankment work as well as track and road crossings construction. In addition, due to the proposed Perris Station, it would also be affected by construction noise from station and parking elements, which include earthwork, utility work and landscaping among others. (Ibid.) As a result, based on construction noise projections shown in Noise and Vibration Technical Report C, the combined noise level for two of the noisiest pieces of construction equipment would result in a construction noise level of 79 dBA at the property line of the residential home. This would be below the FTA construction noise criteria described in Chapter 12 of the FTA Guidance Manual. It would also be below the 80 dB noise level set by Section 7.34.060 of the Perris General Plan. Therefore, although the total Project construction period is estimated to last approximately 18 months, because the FTA construction noise criteria level was not surpassed, potentially significant construction noise impacts will be less than significant. (Ibid.) 42 2. Public Airport Noise (Threshold 4.10-5): The Project is located near to the MARB, a public airport, but the Project would not have a potentially significant impact regarding exposure of people to excessive noise levels and mitigation is not required. One public airport exists within close proximity to the Project study area. The MARB airfield within the March JPA area is primarily used by the military and commercial cargo flights. The MARB airfields are located less than two miles from noise sensitive receptors along the PVL corridor. However, as shown in Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11, no Project -related noise impacts were predicted to occur at this nearby location. Therefore, people will not be exposed to significant noise impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-39.) 3. Private Airstrip Noise (Threshold 4.10-6): The Project is located near to a private airport, the Perris Airport, but no potentially significant Project -related noise impacts will occur and thus impacts will be less than significant and mitigation is not required. One private airport, the Perris Airport, exists within close proximity to the Project study area. The Pen -is Airport is located across the street from the South Perris Station and Layover Facility. However, as shown in Tables 4.10-9, 4.10-10 and 4.10-11 of the EIR, no Project -related noise impacts were predicted to occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-39.) K. Traffic And Transportation 1. Air Traffic Patterns (Threshold 4.11-3): The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns and thus no impact would result. The Project does not propose any actions which would result in an increase in air traffic or a change in air traffic patterns, and therefore, would not create any impacts in this context. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-34.) 2. Hazards Due to Design Features (Threshold 4.11-4): The Project would not introduce design features that would result in a potentially significant impact regarding hazards. The proposed Project would involve track upgrades to an existing rail line to allow for commuter rail service, but would not introduce design features that would increase hazards. The track and grade crossing improvements are required to bring the existing freight facility up to commuter rail standards, thereby resulting in safer operations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-34.) 3. Emergency Access (Threshold 4.11-5): The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and thus the impact would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The proposed Project would include the closure of two grade crossings to the public: Poarch Road in Riverside and 6th Street in downtown Perris. The existing grade crossings at Poarch Road are planned to be closed to the public with access by emergency vehicles only (with a locked gate). The closure of the Poarch Road crossing would redirect public access to the small number of residences northeast of the crossing via Watkins Drive. However, these residences are accessible via Gernert Road. As Poarch Road will remain accessible to emergency vehicles only, the Project would not result in a change in emergency access to this neighborhood. Closure of the 6th Street crossing in downtown Perris would also not create inadequate emergency access as alternate routes (4th and 7th Streets being the nearest) around the closure could be readily used by emergency personnel. In addition, the northern end of Commercial Street would be closed to the public (with locked gates) where it intersects with D Street and Perris Boulevard, 43 which would allow access to emergency vehicles only. As Commercial Street will remain accessible to emergency vehicles, the Project would not result in a change in emergency access. Local fire stations and other emergency responders would be notified of these permanent closures to allow for adjustments in their emergency routes and to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained. Further, new signals and gates would be installed at 15 grade crossings by the Project to promote safe traffic flow. The operation of the gates at the crossings for the passing of a train could potentially delay emergency vehicles for approximately 30 seconds during the presence of a train crossing. However, given that the train crossings would occur only twelve times each day, and would block the crossing for a total of six minutes during a 24 -hour period, the probability of an emergency vehicle experiencing this delay is slight, and this measure will not significantly impact emergency access. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-34.) 4. Alternative Transportation (Threshold 4.11-6): The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and thus no impact would occur here. The implementation of the PVL commuter rail service would serve as an alternative transportation option, help alleviate existing and future congestion in the 1-215 corridor, provide bus connections to several RTA bus routes at all stations, implement improvements at several grade crossings, and provide park -and -ride facilities, all of which would be aligned with the policies of the Cities of Riverside and Perris to encourage increased use of public transportation and multi -modal transportation as means of reducing roadway congestion, to ensure adequate connections among all alternative modes, and to reconstruct existing grade separations as necessary for the smooth flow of traffic to name a few. Moreover, the PVL Project was contemplated as one of the 2008 Regional Transportation Planning projects for Riverside County. (See RTP (2008).) As such, the Project would reinforce, rather than conflict with, adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-34 to 40.) L. Utilities And Service Systems 1. Wastewater (Threshold 4.12-1): The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and thus impacts would be less than significant. The Project's only restroom facilities would be located on the trains themselves and at the Layover Facilities. The toilets and other wastewater collected on the trains would be discharged into the sanitary sewer connection at the Layover Facility and treated at the PVRWRF. In addition, the Layover Facility would provide restroom facilities for approximately 70 crew members. The volume of waste generated by the trains and Layover Facility would not exceed wastewater treatment capacities established by SARWQCB. Additionally, during construction of the PVL, construction personnel would use rented portable restrooms and sinks, which would be transported to a wastewater treatment facility for proper treatment. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7.) 2. New or Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Threshold 4.12-2): The Project would not require or result in the construction or the expansion of wastewater treatment facilities and thus the impact would be less than significant. The Project is expected to require water for landscaping at each of the station sites and at the Layover Facility. The Layover Facility will require water for maintenance of landscaped areas and the crew restroom facilities. The quantity of water necessary for the stations is very low since the landscaping will be drought 44 tolerant. The Project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities. Wastewater will be generated at the Layover Facility, from the restrooms on the trains, and from the crew facilities. The amount of wastewater that will be generated by the Project is very limited and no new or expanded treatment facilities are necessary to accommodate this wastewater. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7.) 3. New or Expanded Stormwater Facilities (Threshold 4.12-3): The use of stormwater detention facilities, BMPs associated with the SWPPP, and the replacement or reconstruction of culverts, impacts relating to stormwater drainage would be less than significant. In accordance with the requirements of the SWRCB, which administers the State's construction stormwater program, the proposed Project, which will disturb more than one acre of soil, must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (CGP). This CGP requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to reduce or eliminate soil erosion. The SWPPP will identify BMPs to minimize erosion and sediment loss. Parking lots will be constructed at each of the four proposed station sites. During construction of proposed parking lots, run-off water may contain sediments that may cause environmental effects to the stormwater drainage system. The parking lots at the proposed stations will consist of an underground drainage system, which will connect to the local stormwater drainage system. Parking lots at the Hunter Park Station option, March Field/Moreno Valley Station, and South Perris Station will each have an underground detention facility for stormwater associated with the drainage system, as a means to slow the influx of stormwater into the local stormwater drainage system. A stormwater detention basin will also be constructed at the Layover Facility to facilitate this same purpose. Within the PVL corridor, there are 53 culverts of which approximately 30 would be replaced or reconstructed as part of the Project. These would be replacements or extensions of existing culverts and therefore there would be no change in the current stormwater drainage patterns. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-7 to 8.) 4. Water Supplies (Threshold 4.12-4): The Project would use water to comply with Fugitive Dust Rule 403 during construction. Additionally, the Project would use limited amounts of water for the Layover Facility and use limited amounts of recycled water for irrigation for landscaping and maintenance. The limited amount of water needed would make any potential impact less than significant. During construction of the PVL corridor, water trucks will supply water to the Project. The use of water trucks is required during construction to comply with Fugitive Dust Rule 403. This water will be supplied by local sources. When fully operational, the proposed Project would require limited water supplies for landscape irrigation, an office for approximately 70 employees at the Layover Facility, and maintenance requirements. The proposed stations and Layover Facility would be landscaped using drought tolerant and low water demand plants. The irrigation systems at each of the proposed stations and Layover Facility would use recycled water from the local water providers. The Layover Facility will connect to an existing EMWD waterline for potable water near Case Road, which is adjacent to the site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8.) 5. Capacity of Wastewater Facilities (Threshold 4.12-5): The Project would not involve the generation of enough waste to exceed wastewater treatment capacities and thus impacts would be less than significant. During construction of the PVL, construction personnel would use rented portable restrooms and sinks, which would be transported to a wastewater treatment facility for proper treatment. The toilets and other wastewater collected on the trains 45 would be discharged into the wastewater sewer system at the Layover Facility and treated at the PVRWRF. In addition, the Layover Facility would provide restroom facilities for approximately 70 crew members. The volume of waste generated by the trains and Layover Facility would not exceed wastewater treatment capacities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-8 to 9.) 6. Landfills (Threshold 4.12-6): The Project would generate a limited amount of solid waste and would not rely on landfills to dispose of such waste and thus impacts would be less than significant. The Project will rehabilitate the existing rail, create a new by-pass track, and build new stations and a Layover Facility. This work will generate limited solid waste because the rail and ties that will be removed will be reused within the overall rail system and not disposed of in a landfill. The remaining work will be new construction which will generate used concrete forms and other waste. Limited amounts of solid waste would be generated by employees at the Layover Facility, train passengers and personnel, and maintenance personnel for the PVL. Although limited amounts of solid waste are anticipated during operation of the PVL, recycling programs developed by the cities of Riverside and Perris would be implemented at the proposed stations, and Layover Facility. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9.) 7. Solid Waste (Threshold 4.12-7): The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, which includes recycling programs developed by the cities of Riverside and Perris, and thus impacts would be less than significant. During construction, small quantities of non -recyclable solid waste, in the form of construction waste and other debris will be generated by the Project. This material would be recycled and reused to the full extent practicable. Any remaining material would be disposed of at an approved Class III landfill in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. This includes the California Integrated Waste Management Act requirements for municipalities to divert 50% of their solid waste to recycling facilities by 2000. During the operation and maintenance of the PVL, very small quantities of solid waste (miscellaneous litter and debris from the trains), proposed stations, and Layover Facility would be disposed at a Class III landfill in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9.) M. Minerals, Population & Housing, Public Services, and Recreation Resources As set forth in Section 6.0 the EIR and the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study prepared for the Project, the Project will not result in any potentially significant impacts under any of the thresholds of significance applicable to Minerals, Population & Housing, Public Services, or Recreational resources. Accordingly, and as permitted State CEQA Guidelines section 15128, Section 6.0 of the EIR provides a "statement briefly indicating the reasons that [these resource areas] were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR." Nonetheless, the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study, the EIR, and other evidence in the administrative record as a whole provide substantial evidence supporting the Commission's finding as to these resource areas. SECTION 3 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The Commission hereby finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the 46 imposition of feasible mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The potentially significant impacts and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce those impacts to a less then significant level are as follows: A. Aesthetics 1. Light and Glare (Threshold 4.1-4): The proposed Project would result in construction activities along the Project alignment that would generate light and glare. Finding: The Mitigation Measure outlined below would reduce to a less than significant level the Project's generation of light and glare during construction. The Mitigation Measure reflects a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact of generating light and glare during construction as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure AS -1 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. According to Mitigation Measure AS -1, in order to limit light spill over into residential areas during construction, light attenuating barriers or directed lighting will be used. AS -1: To minimize light spill over into residential areas during construction, light attenuating barriers or directed lighting shall be used. Supporting Explanation: Portions of the Project would require the addition of lighting that would comply with local laws. For example, development that occurs within 45 miles of the Palomar Observatory would implicate Riverside County Ordinance 655. The proposed Citrus, Connection, bridges, towers, and landscape walls do not require lighting and thus no impact will ensue for this part of the Project. Construction activities for the SJBL alignment could require night work, which could mean a potential for light spillover. Mitigation Measure AS -1 would be implemented to reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. Moreover, light sources from the commuter trains would be mobile and would not exceed the existing light sources in the area, and thus no potentially significant impact would arise as a result. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-19 to 4.1-21.) The construction of the four stations would provide adequate lighting for safety purposes and would remain on during operational hours. After the last train of the day, the station and parking lights would cycle with half of the lights remaining on at a time. The lights at the layover facility would remain on throughout the night. If construction activities occur at night, the lights used would be in compliance with applicable ordinances. More specifically, lighting and glare from the three Hunter Park Station options would be similar to existing light sources and consistent with the light and glare continuity of the surrounding area, and thus the development of this station would not result in a potentially significant light or glare impact during the day or at night. The MorenoValley/March Field Station was already approved as part of the Meridian Specific Plan and the EIR indicated that this station option would not create a potentially significant impact regarding light and glare on the surrounding environs. The added light and glare from the Downtown Perris Station would be consistent with existing lighting sources and not result in a substantial increase in light and glare. This Station would also be required to 47 comply with City of Perris Ordinance Number 1051 due to the Station's proximity to the Palomar Observatory. The South Perris Station and Layover Facility would be required to comply with Riverside Ordinance 655 due to the proximity to the Palomar Observatory, and the light fixtures used would adhere to the City of Perris Ordinance 1051. The proposed facilities would not result in a substantial increase in light or glare and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-20 to 4.1-21.) B. Biological Resources 1. Sensitive Species (Threshold 4.4-1): Portions of the Project would have a potentially significant impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-19 to 28.) Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce the potentially significant impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special status species to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact to sensitive species as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR -1 through BR -17 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts to sensitive species to a less than significant level. These measures identify combination, avoidance (through appropriate construction scheduling), and habitat replacement as mechanisms for protecting biological resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-26 to 4.4-28.) • BR -1: The project biologist shall prepare and conduct pre -construction training for project personnel prior to any ground disturbing activities. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the target species of concern, its habitats, the general provisions of the ESA and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provision of the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the ESA, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve target species of concern as they relate to the project, any provisions for wildlife movement, and the access routes to and from project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. • BR -2: Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas shall be located to minimize the risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other environmentally sensitive habitats. The project specific SWPPP shall identify appropriate construction related BMPs (such as drip pans, straw wattles, and silt fence) to control anticipated pollutants (oils, grease, etc.). • BR -3: Stockpiling of materials shall be limited to disturbed areas without native vegetation, areas to be impacted by project development or in non -sensitive habitats. These staging areas shall be approved by the project biologist, and shall be located more than 500 feet from environmentally sensitive areas. 48 • BR -4: "No -fueling zones" shall be established at least 10 meters (33 feet) from drainages and fire sensitive areas. • BR -5: The project biologist shall monitor construction activities at a minimum of three days per week throughout the duration of the project to ensure mitigation measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any target species of concern outside the project footprint. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed describing field conditions and construction activities. The project biologist shall be empowered to halt work activity if necessary to confer with RCTC to ensure the proper implementation of species habitat and habitat protection measures. • BR -6: To avoid attracting predators that may prey upon protected species, the project site shall be kept clean of trash and debris. Food related trash items shall be disposed of in sealed containers and removed from the site with regular trash removal, at least weekly. Pets of project personnel shall not be allowed on site. • BR -7: If dead or injured listed species are located, initial notification must be made within three working days, in writing to the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance California, and by telephone and in writing to the applicable jurisdiction, Carlsbad Field Office of the USFWS, and the CDFG. • BR -8: Narrow Endemic Plants have the potential to occur in the areas near the San Jacinto River. If Narrow Endemic Plants are identified 90% of the population shall be preserved, as required in the MSHCP. • BR -9: There is a potential to impact western spadefoot toads with the work on the San Jacinto River Bridge and Overflow Channel Bridge. A pre -construction survey for western spadefoot toads shall be conducted prior to site disturbance to determine if western spadefoot toads are present within the designated construction area. Should western spadefoot toads be identified within the construction area, the project biologist shall prepare a relocation program that shall be approved by RCA prior to implementation. • BR -10: The MSHCP requires that preconstruction surveys shall conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take. • BR -11: If nests are identified at the billboards located on the 1-215 corridor, then a project biologist shall determine if the nests are active. If the biologist determines a nest to be active, appropriate buffers shall be used until the birds have fledged and the nest shall be removed with the approval of regulatory agencies. • BR -12: There is a potential for impacts to southwestern willow flycatchers in the southern area of the Box Springs Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work proposed for this area shall be completed outside the bird breeding season (May 15th to July 17th) [Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA) 2004]. 49 • BR -13: There is a potential for impacts to least Bell's vireo in the southern area of Box Springs Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work proposed for this area shall be completed outside the bird breeding season (April 10th to July 31st) (SAWA, 2004). • BR -14: The project is within the SKR Fee area. RCTC shall pay $500 per acre to the SKR development outside the existing right-of-way. This fee shall be paid at the time of the grading permit submittal. The fee will include sites for the Citrus Connection, Hunter Park Station, South Perris, and Layover Facility (approximately 65 acres). • BR -15: There is a potential for impacts to California horned lark in the area of the South Perris Station option and the Layover Facility if the agricultural fields are allowed to allow. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, the ground preparation work shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (March 1st to July 31st) (County of Santa Barbara, 2009) and maintained to ensure that no birds then use the area for nesting prior to construction. • BR -16: There is a potential for impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher within the Box Springs Canyon Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work proposed for this area shall be completed outside the bird breeding season (February 15th to August 30th) (SAWA, 2004). • BR -17: Prior to any construction impacts to jurisdictional areas, RCTC shall obtain permit approval from the USACE, CDFG and the RWQCB. The mitigation for jurisdictional area impacts will be to purchase mitigation credits for permanent impacts at a 1:1 ratio (total of 0.085 acres) from a local mitigation bank. The temporary impacts, 0.335 acres, will be mitigated by restoration/enhancement on land owned by RCTC near or adjacent to the project area. Additionally, as mitigation, the Commission, as a Permittee under the MSHCP, will comply with the requirements outlined in the MSHCP, including the need for a 30 -day Pre -Construction Burrowing Owl Survey. Supporting Explanation (Sensitive Plant Species): Direct Impacts: The potential for Narrow Endemic Plant Species was identified within the identified San Jacinto River during the initial preparation of the MSHCP. Both the BNSF and SJBL are highly disturbed and no sensitive plant species were identified during habitat evaluations. The existing SJBL intersects MSHCP criteria cells, 545, 635, 721, 3276, and 3378 as shown on Figure 4.4-6. Cells 545, 635, and 721 are part of Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, which is considered a wildlife corridor south of Box Springs Park and north of the freeway. However, cells 3276 and 3378 are within Proposed Constrained Linkage 19, which is located at the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. Proposed Constrained Linkage 19, which in addition to important consideration as a wildlife corridor is identified as having a potential for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Because the MSHCP identifies the area as having a potential for Narrow Endemic Plant Species, a habitat evaluation is required as well as 50 bloom period surveys if appropriate habitat is present. See specifically Mitigation Measure BR -8 below. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-19 to 28.) Indirect Impacts: There are no indirect impacts to sensitive plant species as a result of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.) Supporting Explanation (Sensitive Wildlife Species): Direct Impacts: The Project is outside the SKR Core Reserve areas but is inside the fee area. Even though no SKR were found during any of the biological surveys of the Project site (Revised Habitat Assessment Report (2009)), mitigation fees will nonetheless be voluntarily paid pursuant to the SKR HCP. (See Mitigation Measure BR -14.) The Western spadefoot toad has the potential to inhabit the San Jacinto River area, near the SJBL. The Project is proposing to replace the San Jacinto River Bridge and the San Jacinto River Bridge Overflow Channel. In order to replace the two bridges, there will need to be work conducted from both within the two channels as well adjacent to the channels. Therefore there is a potential significant impact to the western spadefoot toad and mitigation, specifically Mitigation Measure BR -9, is required to reduce the potential significant impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.) Indirect Impacts: Through the Box Springs Mountain Reserve, and MSHCP criteria cells 545, 635, and 721, the corridor will stay in the pre -Project configuration with a single rail track. Only rehabilitation work and minor culvert improvements are anticipated within this area. The culvert work proposed for the area is minor (e.g., wing walls) and related to reducing the potential for sediment erosion near the culvert outlets. This culvert work would be subject to USACE, CDFG, and the RWQCB permitting requirements, as set forth in Mitigation Measure BR -17. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.) There are a variety of habitat types adjacent to the ROW within the area. The habitat types include sage scrub habitat as well as riparian habitat. Based on the potential for sensitive birds to be associated with these habitats, it is assumed that the following birds will inhabit the area; coastal California gnatcatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher and the least Bell's vireo. Therefore there is a potential to indirectly impact these birds and mitigation is required to reduce the potential significant impact to less than significant, specifically Mitigation Measures BR - 12, BR -13, BR -14, BR -16, BR -17. (Ibid.) Because of the disturbed nature of the ROW and the ongoing maintenance activities of the active rail corridors, direct impacts to burrowing owls are not anticipated. However, there is available nesting habitat for the burrowing owls adjacent to the existing ROW's. Protocol surveys for burrowing owl both within the corridor and in adjacent areas determined that there are no owls present. Since there is a potential to indirectly impact burrowing owls, mitigation is required to reduce the potential significant impact to less than significant, specifically Mitigation Measure BR -10. (Ibid.) Supporting Explanation (Raptor Habitat, Nesting, Foraging): Within the existing BNSF and PVL rail corridors regular maintenance occurs that greatly limits the growth of any vegetation, including non-native grasslands, which would be considered foraging habitat. In the 51 area of the Citrus Connection, the undeveloped land is very disturbed from the proposed development activities on the site. There are non-native grasslands in this area, but the Project would only impact a small swath of non-native grassland, less than an acre, with the installation of the ballast rock, ties, and rail. This impact would not be considered significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-23.) Further south, along the 1-215 corridor, there are a series of large billboards located within the ROW. Within many of these billboards are raptor nests. It is assumed that the raptors from these nests utilize the larger undeveloped areas located off of the existing ROW for foraging. These billboards are planned to be relocated within the ROW, a few feet closer to the edge of the ROW. There are potential impacts to these raptors and nests and therefore mitigation is required, specifically Mitigation Measure BR -11. (Ibid.) The station locations and Layover Facility are proposed on land that is either highly disturbed (Palmyrita, Marlborough), developed (Downtown Perris), or disturbed land (Columbia, South Perris, and the Layover Facility). Since the areas are already disturbed, there is a minor impact to raptor foraging habitat, but this impact would be less than significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) 2. Riparian Habitat (Threshold 4.4-2): There would be temporary and permanent impacts to the areas of the Project where culverts would be extended or replaced. There is sensitive and riparian habitat within the corridor associated with the culverts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4- 23.) Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce temporary and permanent impacts to riparian habitat to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to riparian habitat identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR -1 through BR -17, set forth above and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce impacts to sensitive species to a less than significant level. These measures identify combination, avoidance (through appropriate construction scheduling), and habitat replacement as mechanisms for protecting biological resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-26 to 4.4-28.) Supporting Explanation: There are sensitive habitats associated with the sensitive species identified previously that are adjacent to the existing SJBL. In addition to the areas of adjacent sensitive habitat, there are very small, dislocated areas of riparian habitat, or jurisdictional areas, within the corridor that are associated with the culverts that pass beneath the track bed. These culverts allow stormwater to flow from one side of the track to the other. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-23 to 28.) The Project proposes to extend or replace various culverts on the SJBL ROW. Additionally, the Project is proposing to replace the existing bridges at the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. During the jurisdictional evaluation of the culverts and bridge locations, there was a 50 -foot study area identified surrounding each of the culverts 52 evaluated as identified in the Jurisdictional Determination Report (see Technical Report F). Within this study area there were federally protected wetlands identified within the ROW at only one work location. At the remaining work areas there were jurisdictional impacts identified for both USACE and CDFG. Both temporary and permanent impacts would occur, as identified in Table 4.4-3 of the Draft EIR. The permanent impacts could occur in areas where new culverts would be placed and temporary impacts would be related to areas affected by construction at the ends of the culverts and at the bridge locations. However, mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) A combination of measures designed at education, avoidance, and habitat replacement (where necessary) will help mitigate impacts on biological resources. Habitat replacement is necessary where permanent impacts to habitat are unavoidable such as those impacts related to the culvert improvement work along the Project corridor. Potentially jurisdictional riparian habitat has developed over the years because of local drainage being focused by the culverts. Since these areas are fragmented and not connected to either larger habitat areas or part of a natural riparian system the ecological value is low. The regulatory agencies require appropriate mitigation for jurisdiction areas prior to issuing permits for the Project, and that performance standard is set forth in the Mitigation Measures required to reduce biological impacts to less than significant levels. 3. Wetlands (Threshold 4.4-3): The Project proposes to extend or replace various culverts on the SJBL Row and is also proposing to replace the existing bridges at the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. Federally protected wetlands were identified at one work station within a 50 foot study area, and there were both temporary and permanent impacts that would result from the work proposed for the culverts. The permanent impacts could result where the culverts are added, and temporary impacts could occur as a result of the construction at the ends of the culverts and at the bridge locations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-23 to 28.) Finding: Mitigation Measures BR -l7 would reduce temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measure reflects a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to wetlands identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 1509l(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR -17, set forth above and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce impacts to wetlands to a less than significant level. According to BR -17, RCTC would be required to secure necessary permits from USACOE, CDFG, and RWQCB, resource agencies that will collectively ensure that all impacts to wetlands are appropriately avoided and/or mitigated through habitat replacement or otherwise. The EIR also sets forth an enforceable performance standard that sets a minimum mitigation ratio for any impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-23 to 24, 4.4- 28.) Supporting Explanation: The Project proposes to extend or replace existing culverts on the SJBL ROW and is also proposing to replace existing bridges at the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto River Overflow Channel. A 50 -foot study area surrounding each of the culverts identified federally protected wetlands at only one work location. Both permanent (0.038 acres) 53 and temporary (0.145 acres) impacts to USACOE jurisdictional areas would occur as a result, but impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-23 to 24.) Similarly, both temporary (0.335 acres) and permanent (0.085 acres) impacts to CDFG jurisdictional areas would occur as a result of implementation of the project, but impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (Ibid.) A combination of measures designed at education, avoidance, and habitat replacement (where necessary) will help mitigate impacts on biological resources. Habitat replacement is necessary where permanent impacts to habitat are unavoidable such as those impacts related to the culvert improvement work along the Project corridor. According to BR -17, the performance mitigation standard for impacts to jurisdictional areas would be to purchase mitigation credits at a 1:1 ratio (total of 0.085 acres) from a local mitigation bank. The temporary impacts, 0.335 acres, will be mitigated by restoration/enhancement on land owned by RCTC near or adjacent to the project area.. Potentially jurisdictional riparian habitat has developed over the years because of local drainage being focused by the culverts. Since these areas are fragmented and not connected to either larger habitat areas or part of a natural riparian system the ecological value is low. The regulatory agencies require appropriate mitigation for jurisdiction areas prior to issuing permits for the Project, and that performance standard is set forth in the Mitigation Measures required to reduce biological impacts to less than significant levels. (Ibid.) C. Cultural Resources 1. Historical Resource (Threshold 4.5-1): Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce temporary and permanent impacts to historic resources to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to historic resources identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2 and CR-4 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts to historic resources to less than significant levels. • CR-1: A qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall monitor ground disturbing construction activities between MP 3.50 and 4.50, and between MP 5.60 and 6.50. These monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to examine potential resources, assess significance, and offer recommendations for the procedures deemed appropriate to either further investigate or mitigate any adverse impacts. CA-RIV-2384, CA-RIV-4497/H and AE -CB -2 sites shall be avoided during project construction through the establishment of ESA and delineated by exclusionary fencing. • CR-2: Replacement of four wood box culverts (MP 1.60, 5.30, 6.11 and 18.10) and two bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80) along the SJBL alignment shall be mitigated by detailed documentation according to Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic America Landscape Survey standards. 54 • CR-4: In the event cultural or paleontological resources are encountered during construction, ground -disturbing activity will cease in the immediate area. A qualified archaeologist (cultural resources) and/or paleontologist (paleontological resources) shall be retained to examine the materials encountered, assess significance, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts to those resources that have been encountered Supporting Explanation: No cultural resources were identified near the Citrus Connection; however, sediments within the Citrus Connection are of Holocene age and thus Mitigation Measure CR-1 would be required to reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-10 to 15.) Five cultural resources were identified near the SJBL alignment. The SJBL Railroad is considered eligible for listing on the CRGR Criterion 1. The first of the three contributing segments of the SJBL Railroad within the PVL corridor is located in the City of Riverside from Marlborough Avenue south of Spruce Street. The second contributing segment is located in the city of Riverside from Gernert Road south to the Box Springs Overpass, while the third contributing segment is located in the city of Perris from the "D" Street off ramp of 1-215 southeast along Case Road. These three segments retain integrity of location, setting, design, and workmanship, and are therefore considered to be contributing components to the larger SJBL Railroad. These three segments contain tracks, wood box culverts, and bridges. Since the proposed PVL Project will not modify the setting and engineering of the tracks, and the double track will not be constructed at these locations, the Project will have no significant effect on this portion of the SJBL Railroad. However, four wood box culverts (MP 1.60, 5.30, 6.11, and 18.10) and two bridges (MP 20.70 and 20.80) are unique in their construction and are an integral part of the segments of the SJBL that retain integrity. Mitigation Measure CR-2 is required to reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Proposed development in the areas of CA-RIV-2384 and CA-RIV-4497/H involves upgrading the existing tracks, which would not impact the features of the site, and thus the construction, operation, and maintenance of the SJBL alignment at these locations would not have a potentially significant impact and no mitigation is required. The distance separating AE - CB -2 from the SJBL alignment (over 52 feet) means that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the SJBL alignment will not have a potentially significant impact on this site. CA-RIV-805, a prehistoric site, which according to geological sources contains Holocene and thus holds the potential for buried cultural deposits, was tested and the testing concluded that no intact buried deposits are present and that surface artifacts represent the only remnants of the site. The site is therefore not eligible for CRHR and no impacts will result. (Ibid.) No historical resources were identified near to the Hunter Park Station options. Nor were any such resources identified near to the proposed Moreno Valley/March Field Station, and this Station was already the subject of the Specific Plan for the Meridian Business Center, which also determined that there were no impacts here. No historical resources were identified at the South Perris Station and the Layover Facility. However, sediments in this area are of Holocene age and thus Mitigation Measure CR-1 is required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. No historical resources were identified near the vicinity of the six radio control towers 55 and three microwave tower sites. Nor were any such resources identified near to any of the proposed landscape walls. (Ibid.) One historical resource was identified near the proposed Downtown Perris Station, which is the Perris Depot —currently listed on the NRHP under Criteria A and C. It is located east of the SJBL ROW and outside of the construction footprint for the Downtown Perris Station. The platform for the proposed Downtown Perris Station would be at -grade, and located west of the existing rail line and north of the historic Depot. Because of this designation, construction activities of the Downtown Penis Station have been planned to avoid altering, impairing, or diminishing any of the qualities for which the historic depot is valued. Therefore, the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Downtown Perris Station will not adversely change the significance of this historical resource. (Ibid.) 2. Archeological Resources (Threshold 4.5-2): The proposed Project could have potentially significant impacts on archeological resources. Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant impacts to archeological resources to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to archeological resources identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-4, set forth above and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce impacts to archeological resources to less than significant levels. Supporting Explanation: No archaeological resources were identified in the vicinity of the proposed development sites within the PVL corridor. However, there is a potential for buried prehistoric cultural deposits that could be impacted by ground disturbing activities greater than four feet and thus Mitigation Measure CR-1 is necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-13.) 3. Paleontological Resources (Threshold 4.5-3): Portions of the Project have the potential to significantly impact paleontological resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-13 to 16.) Finding: The Mitigation Measures outline below would reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1). Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-3 and CR-4 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant levels. • CR-3: Ground -disturbing activities shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist at the Citrus Connection, South Perris Station and Layover Facility. The monitor shall also be present at locations where excavation is anticipated to be deeper than four 56 feet. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of specimens. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage any fossils unearthed during project construction, and shall be prepared to collect sediment samples that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. To mitigate adverse impacts to any paleontological resources encountered during construction, recovered specimens shall be identified, prepared for permanent reservation, and curated at the San Bernardino County Natural History Museum with permanent retrievable paleontological storage. A report of findings that includes an itemized inventory of specimens shall accompany the recovered specimens for curation and storage. Supporting Explanation: There are no unique geologic features near the PVL corridor. However, portions of the Project are sensitive for paleontological resources and there Mitigation Measure CR-3 will be required to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. The Citrus Connection contains Holocene -age young alluvial fans, which are not significant for paleontological resources. The SJBL alignment traverses types of sediments that comprise old and very old alluvial deposits, which have been known to yield paleontological resources. The Marlborough Avenue option for the Hunter Station consists of old alluvial fan deposits, which have the potential to produce paleontological resources, although extensive grading and disturbance to native sediments make uncovering such resources unlikely, and thus there is no potential for a significant impact here. Construction activities at the Columbia Avenue and Palmyrita Avenue options include old alluvial fan deposits that may yield paleontological resources and thus Mitigation Measure C-3 is necessary. The Moreno Valley/March Field Station, the Downtown Perris Station, and the South Perris Station and Layover Facility are also mapped as old and very old alluvial fans and thus Mitigation Measure C-3 is necessary here as well. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-13 to 16.) 4. Human Remains (Threshold 4.5-4): Human remains are not anticipate to be uncovered during site preparation or construction. However, in the event that human remains are unearthed, potentially significant impacts could occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-15 to 16.) Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant impacts to human remains to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts to human remains identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-5 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts to human remains to less than significant levels. • CR-5: In the event that unanticipated discovery of human remains occurs during project construction, the procedures outlined in §15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines shall be strictly followed. These procedures specify that upon discovery, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably 57 suspected to overlie adjacent human remains can occur. The county coroner must be contacted to determine if the remains are Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall make recommendations for the appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods in accordance with PRC §5097.98. Supporting Explanation: The Project is not expected to disturb any human remains and thus no impacts are anticipated, but if human remains are uncovered, then Mitigation Measure CR-5 will be followed. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-15 to 16.) D. Hazardous And Hazardous Materials 1. Hazardous Materials Sites (Threshold 4.7-4): Portions of the Project area may involve soil that could have a potentially significant impact related to the existence of hazardous materials. Finding: Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant impacts involving soil that may contain hazardous materials to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with soil that may contain hazardous materials identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HHM-1 and, if necessary, HHM-2 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with soil that may contain hazardous materials to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.) • HHM-1: Soil contamination is suspected at the following locations: o 6400 Fischer Road, Riverside — diesel AST release o 13260 Highway 215, Riverside — gasoline UST release o 2 South D Street, Perris — gasoline UST release o 24 D Street, Perris — gasoline UST release o 101 and 102 South D Street, Perris — gasoline UST release and waste oil release o 210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris — gasoline and diesel UST release Prior to construction, soil characterization shall occur and includes sampling and analysis, and drilling shall be coordinated with and under the guidance of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. RCTC shall contract with a 58 qualified environmental consultant to determine if the soil has been sampled, characterized and disposed of properly according to state and federal regulations. • HHM-2: If the Palmyrita Avenue site is selected for the Hunter Park Station, but is not properly remediated prior to acquisition, RCTC shall require the responsible party to remove and remediate hazardous conditions and materials pursuant to the requirements of the local, state, and federal regulations. If, prior to acquisition, the current property owner does not complete proper remediation, the Commission shall perform the remediation in accordance with a Health and Safety Plan, and in accordance with the required protocols for the removal and disposal of hazardous materials. Because of the potential for soil contamination, sampling and disposal plans shall be implemented prior to Pre -Construction according to a site -specific hazardous materials investigation work plan. Supporting Explanation: The HMCS has identified locations of potential environmental concern within and adjacent to the PVL corridor, which are set forth in Figure 4.7-1 of the EIR and discussed below. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.) The Citrus Connection and selected Hunter Park Station options at Palmyrita and Marlborough were historically used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, it is possible that increased amounts of pesticides and/or herbicides are present at these sites. Soil excavation activities are proposed to take place at this site prior to the construction phase of the Project and, as such, there may be hazards related to the soil for construction workers and the environment. Mitigation Measure HM -2 will be implemented, to the extent necessary, if the Palmyrita Avenue site is selected for the Hunter Park Station to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) According to the EDR contained in the HMCS, approximately 75 gallons of diesel were released onto the railroad tracks during an automobile accident in 2001, to the south of Fair Isle Drive. It is possible that residual diesel is currently present on the railroad tracks. Since track rehabilitation is proposed for this segment, soil would not be disturbed or excavated, and therefore, the health and safety of the construction workers would not be affected. The health and safety of the general public and railroad workers would not be affected during the operation and maintenance of the PVL. Therefore, there would be no impacts from the release by the implementation of the Project. (Ibid.) A number of properties adjacent to the PVL corridor were identified as locations subject to unauthorized releases of substances from USTs and ASTs. The EDR records indicate that the releases may have impacted soil and groundwater. These releases may have an adverse effect to workers during excavation and dewatering activities in the construction phase. The following sites may have negative effects to the health and safety of construction workers during construction activities of the Project, due to the proposed disturbance or excavation of soil within the PVL corridor: 6400 Fischer Road, Riverside (diesel AST release); 13260 Highway 215, Riverside (gasoline UST release); 2 South D Street, Perris (gasoline UST release); 24 D Street, Perris (gasoline UST release); 101 and 102 South D Street, Perris (gasoline UST release and waste oil release); 210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris (gasoline and diesel UST release). (Ibid.) 59 The potential for soil contamination at the sites discussed herein requires implementation of Mitigation Measure HHM-1, which requires soil sampling to allow for soil characterization to ensure it is properly handled to mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance. (Ibid.) 2. Emergency Evacuation Plan (Threshold 4.7-7): The Project will require temporary re-routing of emergency response routes to avoid street closures. Finding: The Mitigation Measure outlined below would reduce potentially significant impacts from the temporary re-routing of emergency response routes to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with temporary re-routing of emergency response identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HHM-3 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with the temporary re-routing of emergency response routes to less than significant levels. • HHM-3: Prior to construction, RCTC shall prepare a traffic management plan. The traffic management plan shall be prepared in consultation with local jurisdictions to determine detour routes, length and timing of any closures, temporary access routes, signage, coordination with police and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access routes. An additional component of the plan shall be coordinating with local emergency response agencies to identify emergency evacuation routes in the event of a wildland fire near PVL facilities. This plan is intended to cover the requirements of Mitigation Measure HHM-4 and TP-6. Supporting Explanation: During construction activities, the proposed Project will require temporary re-routing of emergency response routes to avoid street closures. However, prior to construction, local emergency services for the Project so that alternative travel routes can be identified prior to the road closure. Routine operation and maintenance of the PVL corridor would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans and Mitigation Measure HHM- 3 will be implemented to ensure impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-17.) 3. Wildland Fires (Threshold 4.7-8): The proposed Project may have potentially significant impacts with regard to incidents involving wildland fires. Finding: The Mitigation Measure outlined below would reduce potentially impacts with regard to incidents of wildland fires to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measure reflects a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with incidents involving wildland fires identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HHM-4 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with incidents involving wildland fires to less than significant levels. • HHM-4: See Mitigation Measure HHM-3, above. 60 Supporting Explanation: A section of the PVL corridor, east of Mt. Vernon Avenue to the 1-215/SR-60 Interchange is shown to be in a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards. This area of Box Springs Mountain Reserve has been incorporated into a Wildfire Management Plan, and is under State of California responsibility for fire protection. Evacuation plans caused to be put into effect by a wildland fire may be affected during construction activities because the proposed Project will temporarily close streets or grade crossings. However, routine operation and maintenance of the Project would not interfere with daily operations at the grade crossings and streets associated with these crossings. Mitigation Measure HHM-4 will be implemented, which involves the preparation of a traffic management plant and coordination with local jurisdictions that will reduce potential impacts to emergency response or evacuation routes for wildland fires to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-17 to 18.) E. Noise And Vibration 1. Noise Generation (Threshold 4.10-1): The proposed Project would generate noise levels that would be potentially significant. Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant noise impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with noise generation identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NV -1 and NV -2 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with noise generation to less than significant levels. • NV -1: Noise barriers shall be constructed at the following locations (based on 30% Design Drawings): o NB 1: 10' high and 530' long between 264+00 and 269+00 o NB 2: 13' high and 560' long between Sta. 269+00 and Sta. 275+00 o NB 3: 9' high and 680' long between Sta. 283+00 and Sta. 289+00 o NB 4: 12' high and 600' long between Sta. 289+00 and Sta. 295+00 o NB 5: 8' high and 500' long between Sta. 298+00 and Sta. 303+00 o NB 6: 8' high and 800' long between Sta. 303+00 and Sta. 311+00 o NB 7: 10' high and 700' long between Sta. 322+00 and Sta. 330+00 o NB 8: 11' high and 320' long between Sta. 331+00 and Sta. 334+00 o NB 9: 13' high and 1,100' long between Sta. 324+00 and Sta. 333+00 o NB 10: 13' high and 210' long between Sta. 333+00 and Sta. 335+00 o NB 1 1: 9' high and 300' long between Sta. 336+00 and Sta. 339+00 o NB 12: 11' high and 300' long between Sta. 339+00 and Sta. 342+00 o NB 13: 10' high and 400' long between Sta. 342+00 and Sta. 346+00 • NV -2: Based on the topography and engineering constraints at seven residential locations and St. Georges Episcopal Church (eight properties total), the use of noise 61 barriers will not provide adequate noise reduction. Improving the sound insulation of these properties by replacing windows facing the tracks with new sound -rated windows, as well as caulking and sealing gaps in the building envelope, eliminating operable windows and installing specially designed solid -core doors, will reduce noise to below the FTA impact criteria, and to less than significant levels. Sound insulation for eight properties shall be provided at the following locations: o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at West Blaine Street (619 West Blaine Street) o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (116 East Campus View Drive) o Southwest corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (first home on Mount Vernon Avenue) o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Citrus Street (1027 Citrus Street) o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first two homes on Kentwood Drive) o Southeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first home on Glenhill Drive) o St. Georges Episcopal Church Supporting Explanation: Tables 4.10-p, 4.10-10, and 4.10-11 show the results from Noise and Vibration Technical Report C of the EIR for the Project, and identify the proposed mitigation and the number of decibels that the mitigation would reduce noise by. Utilizing FTA noise impact criteria, the results of the noise study indicate that both moderate and severe noise impacts would occur at several locations along the proposed PVL corridor. For the 2012 operational year, moderate impacts were predicted at 83 separate Category 2 locations along the alignment. Of these 83 impact locations, 18 were predicted to be severe. The predicted noise impacts were located in the UCR area. Noise predictions at Category 3 locations revealed moderate impacts at three locations which included St. George's Episcopal Church, Crest Community Baptist Church, and Highland Elementary School. As a result of the noise prediction analysis, Mitigation Measures NV -1 and NV -2 were identified and if implemented would eliminate anticipated noise impacts at noise sensitive properties to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-27 to 32, 38-42.) Trains: Under the FTA methodology, noise impacts are projected at several Category 2 land uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep) located along the SJBL in Riverside, north of the UCR campus. The majority of the predicted impacts would be a result of the train horns being sounded by trains scheduled to pass through areas with sensitive land uses prior to 7 AM, the demarcation between nighttime and daytime in the calculation of Ldn. Noise from grade crossing warning devices would only affect homes nearby the intersection and would be minimal in comparison to the sounding of train horns. Noise impacts are projected at a total of 83 residential locations, all of which would be located in the UCR area. Impacts at 18 of the total 83 residential locations would be characterized as severe. The FTA severe impact designation is analogous to the CEQA potentially significant impact. Tables 4.10-9 and 4.10-10 present the findings of the noise analysis and its characterization for Category 2 land uses, along the length of the SJBL. (Ibid.) 62 Noise impacts are also predicted for three Category 3 buildings. In the UCR area of Riverside, these impact locations would include the school gymnasium of the Highland Elementary School, St George's Episcopal Church, and Crest Community Baptist Church. None of these impacts would be severe. No impacts on Category 3 buildings were predicted in Perris. Table 4.10-11 presents the land use Category 3 noise impact predictions. (Ibid.) Stations and Parking Lots: Noise due to the operation of a train station is primarily associated with automobile traffic entering and exiting the station drop-off and parking areas. The noise analysis considered the parking lots at each of the four proposed opening year stations. The proposed station parking lots would range from approximately 440 to 880 cars. However, all noise sensitive receptors are located beyond the FTA screening distances (as shown in Appendix C of Noise and Vibration Technical Report C) for all proposed stations and parking lots. This is significant since screening distances are conservatively based on the lowest FTA threshold of impact as indicated in Chapter 4 of the FTA Guidance Manual. As a result sensitive receptors located beyond this distance would not experience noise disturbance from station or parking lot operations (see section 4.2 of the FTA Guidance Manual). Noise from station emergency generators would also not result in any impact from stations as they are not considered to be a normal operating component of the Project and would only be used in the event of an emergency (e.g, a power outage). (Ibid) Layover Facility: Trains in the vicinity of the Layover Facility in South Perris would be traveling at low rates of speed and therefore will not be significant sources of noise. In addition, the proposed Layover Facility (for overnight storage and light, routine maintenance of the trains) is located substantially further away from noise sensitive resources than 1,000 feet, the FTA noise screening distance for noise sensitive land uses with respect to noise from a Layover Facility. As a result, noise impacts related to the Layover Facility will not be significant. (Ibid.) 2. Groundborne Vibration and Noise (Threshold 4.10-2): The proposed Project could result in potentially significant groundborne vibration. Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant groundborne vibration and noise impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NV -3 and NV -4 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with groundbome vibration and noise to less than significant levels. • NV -3: Ballast Mats: A ballast mat consists of a rubber (such as shredded rubber tires), cork or other type of resilient elastomeric pad that is placed under the normal ballast, ties, and rail. The ballast mat shall be placed on a concrete or asphalt layer to be most effective. Ballast mats can provide 5 to 12 dB attenuation at frequencies above 25 to 30Hz. 63 • NV -4: Resiliently Supported Ties (Under -Tie Pads): This treatment consists of resilient rubber pads placed underneath concrete ties. A resiliently supported tie system consists of concrete ties supported by rubber pads. The rails are fastened directly to the concrete ties using standard rail clips. Note: Implementation by RCTC of either one of the above described mitigation measures (NV -3 or NV -4) between Sta. 263+00 and 275+00 will eliminate the 2 VdB impact predicted in the UCR area of Riverside from train operations from the proposed Project (affecting a total of 14 homes extending approximately 1,200 feet along the eastern side of the proposed PVL alignment just south of Spruce Street and north of Hyatt Elementary School). (See Draft EIR, Section 4.10.5). Supporting Explanation: Details of the vibration predictions are presented in the EIR in Tables 4.10-12 (residential) and 4.10-13 (residential) and 4.10-14 (institutional). (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-32 to 35, 38-42.) Rail Operations: Utilizing FTA vibration criteria, the results of the PVL vibration study indicate that future SCRRA/Metrolink rail vibration levels generated under the 2012 operational year would be generally in ranges below the FTA vibration impact thresholds. However, vibration impacts would occur along one residential section of the PVL corridor. Affected homes are located in the UCR area just south of Spruce Street and north of the Highland Elementary School along the eastern side of the proposed PVL alignment. A total of 14 homes extending approximately 1,200 feet along the proposed alignment would be affected. The distances between the PVL alignment and existing homes in this section range from 80 to 90 feet. Train operations from the proposed PVL Project will result in vibration impacts in the UCR area of Riverside. Mitigation measures to reduce vibration include the installation of ballast mats or resiliently supported ties (under -tie pads), as set forth in Mitigation measures NV -3 and NV -4, and will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Stations, Parking Lots, & the Layover Facility: Trains in the vicinity of stations and the Layover Facility would be traveling at low rates of speed and therefore will not result in any potentially significant vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, automobile parking areas would be utilized by rubber -tired vehicles. Rubber -tired vehicles do not generate vibration impacts because of the nature of tire -pavement interaction with respect to vibration impacts. Accordingly, no impacts are expected. (Ibid.) 3. Permanent Noise Increase (Threshold 4.10-3): Impacts related to an increase in ambient noise levels would arise from wheel squeal at certain locations of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-36.) Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant noise impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts associated with noise generation identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) 64 Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures NV -1 and NV -2 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with noise generation to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-36 to 4.10-37.) • NV -1: Noise barriers shall be constructed at the following locations (based on 30% Design Drawings): o NB 1: 10' high and 530' long between 264+00 and 269+00 o NB 2: 13' high and 560' long between Sta. 269+00 and Sta. 275+00 o NB 3: 9' high and 680' long between Sta. 283+00 and Sta. 289+00 o NB 4: 12' high and 600' long between Sta. 289+00 and Sta. 295+00 o NB 5: 8' high and 500' long between Sta. 298+00 and Sta. 303+00 o NB 6: 8' high and 800' long between Sta. 303+00 and Sta. 311+00 o NB 7: 10' high and 700' long between Sta. 322+00 and Sta. 330+00 o NB 8: 11' high and 320' long between Sta. 331+00 and Sta. 334+00 o NB 9: 13' high and 1,100' long between Sta. 324+00 and Sta. 333+00 o NB 10: 13' high and 210' long between Sta. 333+00 and Sta. 335+00 o NB 11: 9' high and 300' long between Sta. 336+00 and Sta. 339+00 o NB 12: 11' high and 300' long between Sta. 339+00 and Sta. 342+00 o NB 13: 10' high and 400' long between Sta. 342+00 and Sta. 346+00 • NV -2: Based on the topography and engineering constraints at seven residential locations and St. Georges Episcopal Church (eight properties total), the use of noise barriers will not provide adequate noise reduction. Improving the sound insulation of these properties by replacing windows facing the tracks with new sound -rated windows, as well as caulking and sealing gaps in the building envelope, eliminating operable windows and installing specially designed solid -core doors, will reduce noise to below the FTA impact criteria, and to less than significant levels. Sound insulation for eight properties shall be provided at the following locations: o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at West Blaine Street (619 West Blaine Street) o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (116 East Campus View Drive) o Southwest corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (first home on Mount Vernon Avenue) o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Citrus Street (1027 Citrus Street) o Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first two homes on Kentwood Drive) o Southeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Street (first home on Glenhill Drive) o St. Georges Episcopal Church Supporting Explanation: As shown in the noise impact tables, Table 4.10-9 and Table 4.10-11, in areas near downtown Riverside, there would be no noise impacts as the dominant existing noise level source at sensitive areas near the PVL would be from the existing rail activity along the BNSF alignment. However, in the UCR campus area along the existing SJBL 65 alignment, there are several sensitive properties at which both moderate and severe noise impacts are predicted to occur. Permanent noise impacts associated with increased passage of trains would be mitigated through the implementation of Mitigation Measures NV -1 and NV -2. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-36 to 37.) In addition to noise from train horns, locomotives and crossing bells, wheel squeal on tight radius curves (<10 times the SCRRA/Metrolink locomotive wheel base or 900 feet) can contribute to community noise levels. Table 4.10-15 of the EIR lists all short radius curves along the proposed PVL alignment. As wheel squeal noise can be significant, wayside applicators will be installed as part of Project implementation in all areas of the corridor with short radius curves. Wayside applicators apply a friction control material to the top of the rail and the gage face to reduce the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal. According to the Transit Cooperative Research Program — "Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual" (Transportation Research Board, 1997) a report which was sponsored by the FTA, the use of a petroleum lubricant would reduce squeal while the use of a water lubricant would eliminate squeal. These steps taken to reduce wheel squeal from the commuter rail operations would also reduce the existing wheel squeal from BNSF freight trains, which do and would continue to operate along the SJBL. (Ibid.) The only location at which the construction of new PVL rail would result in a short radius curve would be the "Citrus Connection" (P -IA). The Citrus Connection curve is also the longest curve along the entire extent of the PVL alignment. This length along with the required slower train speeds along the curve would increase the wheel squeal noise exposure time. Therefore, as requested by the FTA, an analysis of wheel squeal noise was conducted at this location. The analysis of the noise contribution from wheel squeal was conservatively performed for nearby sensitive residences. The resulting analysis indicated that the wheel squeal noise component would result in impacts to residences in the area of Transit Avenue. Predicted Project noise levels would surpass the FTA noise impact criteria by 1 dB. However, as mentioned above, it is important to note that as part of the PVL Project, the Commission will include wayside applicators on all short radius curves. These devices would therefore successfully reduce the significance of wheel squeal noise on all segments of the PVL alignment, including the "Citrus Connection" area and thus ensure no impacts result at residences along Transit Avenue. (Ibid.) F. Traffic And Transportation 1. Increase Traffic (Threshold 4.11-1): The proposed Project is expected to generate increase traffic in terms of added congestion at Cactus Avenue at Old 215 (for the Moreno Valley/March Field Station), SR -74 (4th Street) at D Street (for the Downtown Perris Station), and Bonnie Drive at southbound 1-215 ramps (for South Perris Station) and this increased traffic would have a potentially significant impact. Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant traffic impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic impacts identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) 66 Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures TT -1 through TT -3 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce impacts associated with the generation of new vehicle trips to less than significant levels. • Cactus Avenue at Old 215 (for Moreno Valley/March Field Station): o Reduce north/southbound Old 215's maximum traffic signal green time to 15 seconds during the PM (5-6 PM) analysis hour. This would reduce delays for westbound Cactus Avenue's through movement from 249 to 116 seconds and improve the overall intersection LOS from LOS F with 146 seconds of delay to LOS E with 72 seconds of delay, while maintaining LOS C for Old 215. • SR -74 (4th Street) at D Street (for Downtown Perris Station): o Reduce the maximum green time for the east/west SR -74 left -turn phase to 14 seconds during the PM (5-6PM) analysis hour. The levels of service for north and southbound D Street's through/left-turn movements and the overall intersection would be improved beyond future levels of service without the project during the PM analysis hour with this mitigation measure. • Bonnie Drive at southbound I-215 ramps (for South Perris Station): o Install a new traffic signal. This would improve eastbound Bonnie Drive's right - turn movement from LOS F to LOS B during the PM (5-6PM) analysis hour and left -turn movement from LOS F to LOS C during the AM (6-7 AM) and PM analysis hours. • RCTC shall design the above -proposed improvements, and execute agreements with the affected jurisdictions to provide funding for the installation of the signals or to install the signals in conjunction with the development of the project. With these mitigation measures in place, the significant impacts of the proposed project at the three above -mentioned intersections will be eliminated (out of the six locations where significant impacts are expected). At the remaining three locations where significant impacts are expected (San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, SR -74 at northbound 1-215 Off -Ramp, and SR -74 at Sherman Road), traffic signals are planned to be installed by other projects (unrelated to the PVL) as part of the future conditions without the project. Therefore, no mitigation measures will need to be implemented by the proposed PVL project at these intersections. However, in the event that the signalization of these three locations by other projects (unrelated to the PVL) does not occur prior to the 2012 opening year of the PVL, the installation of traffic signals at these additional locations will be incorporated as PVL project features. Supporting Explanation: 2012 Future Conditions without the Project. The analysis of the 2012 future traffic conditions without the proposed Project serves as the baseline against which opening year impacts of the Project are compared. The future conditions without the Project include the traffic 67 volume increases expected due to an overall growth in traffic through and within the study area, and major approved land developments and roadway system changes scheduled to be occupied or implemented by the 2012 opening year for the PVL. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-12 to 16.) A generally applied background growth rate of two percent per year, resulting in an overall growth of approximately eight percent by 2012, was assumed for Hunter Park and Moreno Valley/March Field station option areas per the guidelines of the cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley. (Ibid.) For Downtown and South Perris station options, which are within the city of Penis, an annual background growth rate of three percent (approximately 13 percent over four years) was used, per City guidelines. (Ibid.) Hunter Park Stations: Movements at the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with the exception of Iowa Avenue's northbound through movement at Center Street, which would worsen from LOS E (existing) to F (future without the PVL Project) during the PM analysis hour, resulting in the overall intersection LOS to deteriorate from LOS D to E. (Ibid.) Moreno Valley/March Field Station: Movements at the intersection of Alessandro Boulevard and Old 215 would continue to operate at acceptable levels. Several movements at the remaining three intersections, however, would worsen, including (ibid.): • At Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway, westbound Alessandro and southbound Mission Grove Parkway's left -turn movements would incur additional delay within LOS E during the PM analysis hour. • At the intersection of Cactus Avenue and southbound I-215 ramps, westbound Cactus Avenue's left -turn movement and the overall intersection would deteriorate from LOS C (existing) to F (future without the PVL Project) during the PM analysis hour. • Westbound Cactus Avenue's through movement would worsen from LOS E to F at Old 215, and the overall intersection LOS would deteriorate from LOS D to F during the PM analysis hour. Downtown Penis Station: The levels of service for movements would remain within acceptable limits during the AM analysis hour. However, several movements would deteriorate to poor levels of service during the PM analysis hour, including (ibid.): • At Nuevo Road and Perris Boulevard, eastbound Nuevo Road's left -turn movement would deteriorate from LOS C (existing) to F (future without the PVL Project); southbound Perris Boulevard's left -turn movement would deteriorate from LOS C to E. The overall intersection LOS would deteriorate from LOS C to E. • At SR -74 and D Street, eastbound SR -74's through/right-turn movements would deteriorate from LOS C to E. Northbound D Street's through/left-turn movements would worsen from LOS E to F, and southbound left -turn movement would deteriorate from LOS D to F. The overall intersection operations would also deteriorate from LOS C to F. 68 • At the intersection of SR -74 and Perris Boulevard, Perris Boulevard's eastbound left -turn movement would deteriorate from LOS C to F. • At San Jacinto and D Street, San Jacinto Avenue's eastbound left -turn and D Street's southbound through movements would deteriorate from LOS D to F, and the overall intersection level of service would deteriorate from LOS C to E. • At San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, San Jacinto Avenue's westbound through/left-turn movements would deteriorate from LOS B to F. Northbound Redlands Avenue's through/left-turn and right -turn movements would deteriorate from LOS D and B to LOS F, respectively. Southbound Redlands Avenue's left -turn movement would deteriorate from LOS B to F. South Perris Station: Most movements would continue to operate within acceptable levels of service. However, the movements that currently operate at LOS F would worsen by incurring significance increases in delay (i.e., delay increases of more than two seconds), and southbound Sherman Road at SR74 would deteriorate from LOS C to E during the PM analysis hour. (Ibid.) 2012 Future Conditions with the Project: Table 4.11-2 of the EIR lists the boardings and alighting passengers and Table 4.11-4 lists the auto trips by station. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-16 to 20.) The assignment of vehicle trips generated by the PVL Project during the AM and PM analysis hours is presented in Traffic Technical Report D. Overall, the increases in traffic would be less than significant in relation to the existing load and capacity of the roadways at most locations (less than five percent increase). However, traffic increases would result in significant impacts in terms of added congestion at a few intersections as explained in the LOS discussion in Section 3.F.2 (below) of the Findings. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-20.) Grade Crossing Closures: In addition to new trips that would be generated by the Project, an increase in traffic volumes along a few roadways would also be experienced due to the closure to the public of two existing grade crossings (Poarch Road in Riverside and 6th Street in Perris). The closure of the Poarch Road crossing to the public will not significantly affect the traffic volumes in the area, but may increase traffic volumes on Gernert Road since this will be used as the primary means of access to the adjacent residential neighborhood. While this proposed change would present an inconvenience to some residents, the impact would not be significant due to the availability of alternative circulation options. Poarch Road will be accessible to emergency vehicles only. (Ibid.) The closure of 6th Street would result in the diversion of east and westbound traffic (up to 35 vph per direction during the AM and PM analysis hours) to 7th Street, the closest grade crossing to remain open. The changes in traffic volumes due to this diversion would be less than significant, and are reflected in the 2012 analyses with the Project. It should be noted that in downtown Perris, as part of the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility Project (not a part of the PVL Project), grade crossings at 2nd and 5th Streets were closed in 2008. The impacts of these closures on travel patterns are already incorporated into the existing traffic network and analyses as the closures were in effect at the time the traffic data collection program was conducted. In 69 addition, 5th Street has been temporarily closed by the City of Perris and will be formally vacated for this Project. (Ibid.) An additional set of vehicle movements that will be disallowed would occur at the northern end of Commercial Street where it terminates at its intersection with D Street and Perris Boulevard. Concerns have been expressed that vehicular turns onto and off of Commercial Street to and from D Street and across the PVL alignment could present a potential safety issue at the tracks as the turning movements involve an acute angle and can present the motorist with limited sight distance. In terms of traffic volumes, a count of vehicle movements taken in mid - November 2010 indicated that less than five vehicles travel through this intersection in any one hour during the day, and most hours show no vehicles at all using it. Thus, there would be little inconvenience to the current low volumes traveling along it, and motorists can access Commercial Street via South Perris Boulevard less than 1/4 mile south of D Street. Although this impact is less than significant, the City of Perris has nonetheless agreed to install a locked gate at the northern end of Commercial Street at D Street, which would allow access for emergency vehicles but be kept closed for all other vehicles. (Ibid.) Supplemental Baseline Analysis: The RCTC provided a supplemental analysis, which utilizes a baseline of 2008 conditions. Although it is currently 2011, and no longer 2008, this supplemental analysis was primarily undertaken for informational purposes. The analysis confirms, however, that the ultimate performance of all roadways and intersections affected by the PVL project using 2008 conditions would be equal to or better than the ultimate performance of those roadways and intersections using the 2012 conditions. Accordingly, this analysis does not provide any new information of substantial importance that might otherwise require recirculation. (See State CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.) To the contrary, it merely clarifies and amplifies the analysis and conclusions already provided in the Draft EIR. (Final EIR at 0.2-3 to 0.2-10.) The "Baseline" Conditions for purposes of this supplemental analysis are those conditions that existed in the Project study area as of 2008, when the NOP was published. The first traffic scenario evaluated in this EIR is the "Baseline" Conditions (2008) + Project. The Baseline Conditions (2008) + Project scenario assumes that the Project would be built instantaneously and that operations would begin in 2008. The next traffic scenario evaluated in this EIR is the No Build Conditions (2012) + Project. The No Build Conditions (2012) scenario assumes the Project is constructed and is operating without any improvements that would have been constructed between the "Baseline" Conditions (2008) and 2012. Thirdly, the EIR evaluates the Build Conditions (2012) + Project conditions. The Build Conditions (2012) + Project scenario adds predicted project impacts to the predicted 2012 conditions without the project. (Final EIR at 0.2-3 to 0.2-10.) Because the Project introduces commuter rail service onto the existing San Jacinto Branch Line, traffic impacts are limited to the four new stations to be constructed (Hunter Park, Moreno Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris, and South Perris). The changes to traffic conditions were evaluated at all proposed stations, and the resultant air quality implications at affected local streets/intersections are based on the changes in traffic impacts for each scenario. The following analyses present each scenario and summarize the traffic and air quality changes associated with each. This is a qualitative analysis focusing on the various changes that would 70 be realized with each scenario ("Baseline + Project" and "No Build + Project") and is presented below. (Ibid.) For each proposed PVL station, traffic impacts under the Baseline, Baseline+Project, and No Build+Project analysis scenarios are described below. The proposed mitigation and an evaluation of the mitigation and the significance of the impacts with mitigation are also presented. (Ibid.) Hunter Park Station Baseline Scenario Movements at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM analysis hours, with the exception of Iowa Avenue at Center Street, where the northbound Iowa Avenue through movement operates at LOS E during the PM analysis hour. (Ibid.) Baseline + Project Scenario No significant impacts would occur at the study intersections with implementation of the project for any of the three alternative station locations. (Ibid.) No Build + Project Scenario No impacts would occur at the study intersections in the vicinity of the Hunter Park Station for any of the three alternative station locations compared to 2012 conditions without the Project. (Ibid. ) Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario The PVL project would not result in any significant impacts under the Baseline+Project or the No Build Conditions+Project scenarios. (Ibid.) Moreno Valley/March Field Station Baseline Scenario The intersection operations are at LOS D or better during both analysis hours with the following exceptions: • At Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway, westbound Alessandro Boulevard and southbound Mission Grove Parkway left -turn movements operate at LOS E during the PM analysis hour. • Westbound Cactus Avenue's through movement at Old 215 operates at LOS E during the PM analysis hour. (Ibid.) Baseline + Project Scenario One significant impact would be expected at one study intersection with implementation of the Project: • Cactus Avenue's eastbound through movement at southbound 1-215 ramps would worsen from Baseline LOS D conditions to Baseline+Project LOS E during the PM analysis hour. 71 This impact would not actually occur and deterioration in levels of service would not actually be realized as a result of the PVL project because of the substantial improvements that have been implemented by the Cactus Avenue Extension/Railroad Bridge Widening project at this location since 2008. These improvements include the widening of east and westbound Cactus Avenue from one to two through lanes, addition of eastbound right -turn storage, and prohibition of southbound through and left -turn movements, which would result in increased capacity. The increased intersection capacity and improved levels of service resulting from the improvements fully mitigate the impacts that would have otherwise resulted from the 2008+Project scenario. (Ibid.) No Build + Project Scenario A significant impact would be expected at one study intersection with implementation of the Project: • The westbound Cactus Avenue through movement at Old 215 would experience a significant impact over 2012 conditions without the Project by incurring just above two seconds of delay within LOS F during the PM analysis hour. However, Mitigation Measure TT -1 in the DEIR (and in the Findings document below) would mitigate this impact to less than significant levels by reducing north/southbound Old 215's maximum green time to 15 seconds during the PM analysis hour. Cactus Avenue's eastbound through movement at southbound I-215 ramps would operate at LOS C during the PM analysis hour. This is not an impact, and is cited here for informational purposes only. (Ibid.) Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario The Baseline Condition+Project suggests an impact at a different intersection (at Cactus Avenue and 1-215 Ramps) compared to No Build Conditions+Project (at Cactus Avenue at Old 215). However, this impact at the intersection of Cactus Avenue and I-215 Ramps would not actually occur, as improvements by other project initiatives (such as the Cactus Avenue Extension/Railroad Bridge Widening project, which included the widening of Cactus Avenue, and the addition of turn lanes) would mitigate the impacts that would have otherwise resulted from the PVL project and the impact at Cactus Avenue at Old 215 in the No Build Conditions+Project scenario would be mitigated by Mitigation Measure TT -1. Therefore, the PVL project would result in less than significant impacts. (Ibid.) Downtown Perris Station Baseline Scenario Movements at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM analysis hours, with the exception of the D Street northbound shared through/left-turn movements at SR -74, which operates at LOS E during the PM, and the southbound C Street shared through/left-turn movements at SR -74, which operates at LOS F, during both the AM and PM analysis hour. (Ibid.) Baseline + Project Scenario 72 Significant impacts would be expected at three study intersections with implementation of the Project: • At SR -74 and D Street, the northbound D Street through/ left -turn movement would incur approximately four seconds of additional delay within LOS E during the PM analysis hour. Mitigation Measure TT -2 identified in the DEIR (and in the Findings document below) would mitigate this impact to less than significant levels by reducing the maximum green time for the east/westbound SR -74 left -turn phase to 14 seconds during the PM analysis hour. • At San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, northbound Redlands Avenue would deteriorate from Baseline LOS D to Baseline+Project LOS E during the PM analysis hour. A traffic signal is planned to be installed at this location by a private developer for the Venue at Perris project (a project that is unrelated to the PVL project) as a condition of approval required by the City of Perris upon the completion of the SR -74 and I-215 Interchange Improvement project in early 2012, prior to the opening of the PVL. This signal would mitigate the impacts that would otherwise result from the PVL project; however, in the event that those improvements are not implemented by the time that the PVL project commences construction, the PVL project will install those improvements. • At SR -74 and C Street, the northbound C Street approach would deteriorate from Baseline LOS B to Baseline+Project LOS F during the PM, and southbound C Street's shared through/ left -turn movement would incur approximately 13 and 200 seconds of delay within LOS F during the AM and PM analysis hours, respectively. This impact would not actually occur and deterioration in levels of service due to the PVL project would not actually be realized because this intersection has been signalized and the conditions that existed in 2008 no longer exist today at this intersection. The existing traffic signal operation alleviates delays on the southbound C Street approach, allowing the intersection to accommodate the traffic volume increment added by the PVL project. (Ibid.) No Build + Project Scenario Significant impacts would be expected at two study intersections compared to 2012 conditions without the Project during the PM analysis hour: • At SR -74 and D Street, both north and southbound D Street through/left-turn movements would incur approximately ten and 20 seconds of additional delay within LOS F, respectively. Mitigation Measure TT -2 would mitigate this impact to less than significant levels by reducing the maximum green time for the east/westbound SR -74 left -turn phase to 14 seconds during the PM analysis hour. • At San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, westbound San Jacinto Avenue's through/left-turn movements and northbound Redlands Avenue would incur four to eight seconds of additional delay within LOS F. A traffic signal is planned to be installed at this location by a private developer for the Venue at Perris project (not part of the PVL project) as a condition of approval by the City of Perris upon the completion of the SR -74 and 1-215 Interchange Improvement project, prior to the 73 opening of the PVL. This signal would mitigate the impacts that would otherwise result from the PVL project. However, if those improvements are not implemented by the time that the PVL project commences construction, then the PVL project will install those improvements. (Ibid.) At SR -74 and C Street, the north and southbound C Street approaches would operate within LOS D during the AM and PM analysis hours. This is not an impact, as the intersection approaches operate within an acceptable LOS, and is cited here for informational purposes. Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario The Baseline Conditions+Project suggests an additional impact (at SR -74 and C Street) compared to No Build Conditions+Project. However, this impact would not actually occur, since Baseline conditions have changed since 2008 with the signalization of this intersection, which mitigates the impacts that would have otherwise resulted from the PVL project. Therefore, the PVL project would result in less than significant impacts. (Ibid.) South Perris Station Baseline Scenario Movements at the three study intersections operate at LOS C or better during both analysis hours with the following exceptions: • The Bonnie Drive eastbound right -turn movement at southbound I-215 ramps operates at LOS F during the PM analysis hour. • The Sherman Road northbound left -turn movement at SR -74 operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM analysis hours, and southbound left/right-turn movement operates at LOS F during the PM analysis hour. (Ibid.) Baseline + Project Scenario Significant impacts would be expected at two study intersections with implementation of the Project: • Eastbound Bonnie rive's left -turn movement at southbound 1-215 ramps would deteriorate from Baseline LOS to Baseline+Project LOS F during the AM and PM analysis hours, and the right -turn mov ment would worsen within LOS F by incurring approximately 164 seconds of addition 1 delay during the PM analysis hour. Mitigation Measure TT -3 identified in the DEIR (and i the Findings document below) would mitigate this impact to less than significant levels by requiring the installation of a new traffic signal at this intersection. • The Northbound Sherman Road left -turn movement onto SR -74 would incur approximately 35 and 75 seconds of additional delay within LOS F during the respective AM and PM analysis hours. Southbound Sherman Road would worsen within LOS F by incurring eight seconds of additional delay during the PM analysis hour. A traffic signal is planned to be installed by the SR -74/1-215 Interchange Improvement project at this location prior to the opening of the PVL. This signal would mitigate the 74 impacts that would otherwise result from the PVL project. However, in the event that those improvements are not implemented by the time that the PVL project commences construction, the PVL project will install those improvements. (Ibid.) No Build + Project Scenario Significant impacts would be expected at all three study intersections compared to 2012 conditions without the Project: • The Eastbound Bonnie Drive left -turn movement at southbound 1-215 ramps would deteriorate from LOS D to F during the AM and PM analysis hours, and the right -turn movement would worsen within LOS F by incurring approximately 240 seconds of additional delay during the PM analysis hour. Mitigation Measure TT -3 would mitigate this impact to less than significant levels by requiring the installation of a new traffic signal at this intersection. • Northbound Sherman Road's left -turn movement onto SR -74 would incur approximately 110 and 290 seconds of additional delay within LOS F during the respective AM and PM analysis hours. Southbound Sherman Road would deteriorate from LOS E to F during the AM, and worsen within LOS F by incurring 160 seconds of additional delay during the PM analysis hours. A traffic signal planned to be installed by the SR -74/I-215 Interchange Improvement project at this location prior to the opening of the PVL. This signal would mitigate the impacts that would otherwise result from the PVL project. However, in the event that those improvements are not implemented by the time that the PVL project commences construction, the PVL project will install those improvements. • SR -74 at northbound 1-215 off -ramp would deteriorate from LOS D to E during the AM and PM analysis hours. Improvements by the SR -74/I-215 Interchange Improvement Project at this location will be implemented prior to the opening of the PVL. These improvements would mitigate the impacts that would otherwise result from the PVL project. However, in the event that those improvements are not implemented by the time that the PVL project commences construction, the PVL project will install those improvements. (Ibid.) Comparison of Baseline + Project Scenario to the No Build + Project Scenario The No Build Conditions+Project would result in one additional impact (at SR -74 and northbound 1-215) compared to the Baseline Conditions+Project. However, improvements by other project initiatives would mitigate the impacts that would have otherwise resulted from the PVL project this impact. Therefore, the PVL project would result in less than significant impacts. (Ibid.) 2. Exceed Level of Service (Threshold 4.11-2): The proposed Project will result in the deterioration of LOS at certain roadways and intersections. 75 Finding: The Mitigation Measures outlined below would reduce potentially significant level of service impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Measures reflect a change or alteration that the Commission has required, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant exceedances of level of service identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1).) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures TT -1 through TT -4 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce level of service impacts to less than significant levels. • TT -1: Cactus Avenue at Old 215 (for Moreno Valley/March Field Station). Reduce north/southbound Old 215's maximum traffic signal green time to 15 seconds during the PM anal sis hour. This would reduce delays for westbound Cactus Avenue's through mov ment from 244 to 119 seconds and improve the overall intersection LOS from L S F with 152 seconds of delay to LOS E with 76 seconds of delay, while maintaining LOS C for Old 215. • TT -2: SR -74 at D Street (for Downtown Perris Station). Reduce the maximum green time for the east/west SR -74 left -turn phase to 14 seconds during the PM analysis hour (5-6 PM). The levels of service for north and southbound D Street's through/left-turn movements and the overall intersection will be improved beyond future levels of service without the project during the PM analysis hour with this mitigation measure. • TT -3: Bonnie Drive at southbound 1-215 ramps (for South Perris Station). Install a new traffic signal. This will improve eastbound Bonnie Drive's right -turn movement from LOS F to LOS B during the PM analysis hour and left -turn movement from LOS F to LOS C during the AM and PM analysis hours. Note: RCTC shall design the above -proposed improvements (TT -1, TT -2, TT -3), and execute agreements with the affected jurisdictions to provide funding for the installation of the signals or to install the signals in conjunction with the development of the project. With these mitigation measures in place, the significant impacts of the proposed project at the five above -mentioned intersections will be eliminated (out of the eight locations where significant impacts are expected). At the remaining three locations where significant impacts are expected (San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, SR -74 at northbound I-215 Off -Ramp, and SR -74 at Sherman Road), traffic signals are planned to be installed by other project initiatives as part of the future condition without the project. Therefore, no mitigation measures will need to be implemented by the proposed PVL project at these intersections. However, in the event that the signalization of these three locations by other project initiatives does not occur prior to the opening year of the PVL, the installation of traffic signals at these additional locations will be incorporated as PVL project features. • TT -4: RCTC shall develop a traffic management plan in consultation with local jurisdictions to minimize impacts to existing traffic levels of service. At a minimum, the traffic management plan shall address: detours; coordination with other 76 construction projects (if applicable); length and timing of any street closures; coordination with police and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access routes; temporary access routes and signage if any commercial properties are affected; and contact information for RCTC and its contractors. Supporting Explanation: Roadways and Intersections: The roadways within the PVL study areas that currently exceed the LOS standards would continue to do so under the future conditions, and operating below these standards would not in itself be considered an impact. However, deterioration in LOS caused by the Project would be considered a significant impact. The LOS analyses for the 2012 Future Conditions with the Project indicated that the majority of the study intersections would continue to operate at the same levels of service as the 2012 conditions without the PVL; however, significant traffic impacts would be expected at a number of intersections as a result of the increase in traffic volumes (due to new vehicular trips generated by the Project) as shown in Table 4.11-5 through Table 4.11-8 of the EIR. Specifically, Westbound Cactus Avenue would experience a significant impact during the PM period (see Table 4.11-6), but Mitigation Measure TT -1 would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-21 to 37.) The intersection of SR -74 and D Street would incur a significant impact, but the implementation of Mitigation Measure TT -2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Also, the intersection of San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues would incur a significant impact; but, given that Caltrans will install a new operating traffic signal at this location prior to the 2012 opening year, the impacts of the Project on this intersection would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Table 4.11-9.) Eastbound Bonnie Drive's left -turn movement at southbound 1-215 ramps would deteriorate, but Mitigation Measure TT -3 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. SR -74 at the northbound I-215 off -ramp would also deteriorate; but, given that Caltrans will install a new operating traffic signal at this location prior to the 2012 opening year, the impacts of the Project on this intersection would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Additionally, the intersection of SR -74 and Sherman Road would deteriorate; but, given that Caltrans will install a new operating traffic signal at this location prior to the 2012 opening year, the impacts of the Project on this intersection would be reduced to less than significant levels. (Ibid.) Grade Crossings: In addition to impacts at key intersections that would experience increases in traffic volumes as a result of Project -generated trips, the PVL could also result in impacts at grade crossings by creating additional delays to vehicles that would be stopped during periods of train movements. However, these additional delays would not be considered significant considering that the Project would operate with twelve trains per day and only one train during the peak traffic hours in 2012, and that the wait time of vehicular traffic (30 seconds for typical operations) would not be any more disruptive to traffic operations than a single red phase of a typical traffic signal cycle. The Project would make improvements at several existing grade crossings including the installation of new signals at several of them. These signals would be placed to improve safety and meet jurisdictional requirements, and would remain inactive (i.e. display a steady green signal for vehicular traffic) unless a train is detected. Therefore, no significant delays would be expected due to the installation of these new signals. (Draft E1R, p. 4.11-30.) 77 Construction -Related Impacts: The construction activities for the proposed PVL would result in an increase of auto and truck trips generated by construction crews, and the delivery/removal of materials to and from the construction sites. It should be noted that the delivery of construction materials and equipment, such as the rail, rail ties, ballast, and specialized track equipment, would be accomplished using the existing rail, as opposed to being delivered by truck. The volume of construction traffic would be modest given that no significant excavation would occur, and most construction -related materials deliveries would occur during non -peak hours so as to limit congestion along adjacent roads. In addition, traffic diversions would occur during partial and complete roadway and grade crossing closures. As a result, the construction activities could potentially create short-term significant traffic impacts although, due to their temporary nature, such impacts may be tolerated and the thresholds of significance during construction periods may be redefined by reviewing agencies pursuant to the traffic management plan required pursuant to the implementation of Mitigation Measure TT -4. Accordingly, the Commission will develop a traffic management plan in consultation with local jurisdictions that will contain measures proven to improve traffic levels of service and mitigate significant impacts to acceptable levels. RCTC will be responsible for the development and enforcement of this measure. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-32.) Also, cut/fill estimates were examined to identify the volume of earth moved off the Project site by trucks and thus determine the estimate truck volume. The estimate yields 30 empty trucks in and 30 filled trucks out. Based on a single shift, this would indicate an average of 4 trucks in and 4 trucks out each hour, which is a very low volume of trucks and is not likely to generate any significant traffic impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-32.) SECTION 4 FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts of a project shall be discussed when they are "cumulatively considerable," as defined in section 15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Cumulatively considerable "means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3).) Section 5.3 of the EIR assesses cumulative impacts for each applicable environmental issue, and does so to a degree that reflects each impact's severity and likelihood of occurrence. With implementation of the Mitigation Measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, all of the Project's cumulative impacts discussed in this Section 4 can be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. A. Aesthetics Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics. 78 Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with related projects within the area, would cumulatively add to the loss of vacant land and the conversion of undeveloped areas for the station sites. The station sites are relatively small in size and, when viewed in the context of the twenty-one mile rail corridor, constitute de minimus reductions in vacant land. There is lighting proposed at the four station sites along the rail corridor. During service hours the lighting is provided for security at the parking areas and boarding platforms. After hours the lighting will cycle in the parking areas so that half the lights are off at any one time. This allows for energy savings. The lighting will be an increase over existing levels, but the stations are located in areas of exiting ambient light resulting from existing commercial building, adjacent street and freeway interchange lighting, and lighting from existing industrial facilities. This small increase in ambient night lighting would not be in areas of sensitive receptors and therefore would not cumulatively contribute to a significant impact in aesthetics in relation to the identified projects. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-4 to 5.) B. Agricultural Resources Finding: The Project would not have a cumulative considerable impact on agricultural resources. Supporting Explanation: The location of the proposed Stations are currently designated for development in the corresponding planning documents and thus, even if the Project does not proceed, agricultural lands will be developed regardless and thus the Project does not have a cumulatively significant impact on the loss of agricultural lands. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5.) C. Air Quality Finding: The Project would comply with state and regional air quality requirements, and implement BMPs (as set forth in Section 3 above and as further discussed in the Draft EIR on page 4.3-26), and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, the Project would not induce or exacerbate any potential impacts introduced by other transit and traffic projects planned for the region. Thus, the Project does not have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality. Supporting Explanation: Overall, the potential for air quality impacts to be cumulatively considerable is reduced because the Project would comply with state and regional air quality requirements, which requires projects to mitigate their individual impacts to less than significant levels based on their forecasted construction schedule and levels of activity. It is assumed that concurrent projects are following the same construction BMPs or are included in the RTIP (in which the impacts of their emissions would be already accounted for in the regional burden) and thus their impacts would not be significant. Construction of the proposed Downtown Perris Station option could occur simultaneously with the construction of other proposed downtown revitalization projects, which could result in cumulative construction impacts. One of these, the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility is currently in the process of being built so there would be no potential for any cumulative impacts since it would be completed before the PVL Project. The extent of the potential impacts with other projects would depend on the location, magnitude, and duration of construction activities for each of the projects. CEQA analysis conducted for this proposed Project indicates the use of several pollution control 79 measures to aid in reducing emissions. However, the Project would avoid exceeding SCAQMD criteria thereby would reduce any potential for cumulative construction period impacts. It is assumed and likely that other construction projects in Perris would also be conducted with similar mitigation and control measures in place. Development projects, such as the Meridian Business Park in Moreno Valley (formerly known as March Business Center), would also be required to impose mitigation measures to address fugitive dust or exceedances of other criteria pollutants during construction. Since construction of each element of these master planned developments would also have to include mitigation measures, the overall potential for cumulative air quality impacts would be reduced. However, the Meridian Business Park would be built over the next 20 to 25 years and is unlikely to interfere with the PVL construction schedule, which would be implemented over the next two years. As such, the overall potential for cumulative impacts would be reduced. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-27 to 28.) Moreover, the PVL would reduce some trip -making that now occurs via automobile, resulting in a corresponding drop in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and a concomitant improvement in air quality. The analysis of MSAT emissions indicates negligible direct emissions, and the cumulative contribution of the operations of SCRRA/Metrolink engines along the PVL would also not result in cumulative emissions impact. The proposed rail service would result in a significant decrease in CO and GHG emissions, offsetting to a very limited degree the additional VMT and GHG directly and indirectly produced within the region. Air quality impacts from construction activities are not significant. With respect to cumulative air quality impacts from construction activities along the corridor, including adjacent unrelated development projects, impacts are also not significant due to the time and distance in those projects and the expected construction of the PVL. Although the total air quality improvement is small compared to the generation of pollutants throughout the region, the introduction of commuter rail service provides an ongoing opportunity for vehicle trip reduction and air quality improvement. (Draft E1R, p. 5-4.) As concerns the public health, higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation are projected to increase from 25 to 35 percent under the lower warming range to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. GHG emissions from the Project are almost entirely attributable to the consumption of energy, particularly fossil fuels, and the proposed Project has incorporated Project design features and programs to reduce the amount of energy used, as described above. The proposed Project also provides close proximity to a variety of alternative mass transit options that would reduce vehicular trips and their corresponding generation of GHGs. In addition to increased air pollution, under the higher warming scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90° F in Los Angeles. Because of similar climate patterns and its proximity to Riverside County, it can be assumed that the number of high heat days in Los Angeles would be similar to Riverside County. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5.) 80 There is also a potential for construction of the PVL to overlap construction of the PVL to overlap construction of the I-215 widening and other development projects detailed above. If concurrent cumulative construction occurs, there may be the potential for construction -related impacts. However, each project is bound to comply with SCAQMD construction air quality requirements; would be generally contained and localized in nature; and would also need to provide for appropriate maintenance and protection of traffic, under the direction and authority of the approving city. Further, construction -related impacts are, by nature, localized and limited in duration; therefore, either alone or in combination these projects, in compliance with applicable regulations, would not result in cumulative construction -related impacts. (Daft EIR, p. 5-11.) Construction of the commuter rail elements would include BMP measures required to assure that activities do not exceed SCAQMD quarterly impact thresholds. Measures to control fugitive dust would be used to avoid violation of the SCAQMD PM 10 criterion, and the proposed sequencing of construction activities would avoid violation of the NO X criterion. By compliance with these mitigation measures, the proposed project would avoid exceeding SCAQMD criteria and reduce the potential for cumulative construction period impacts. Further, traffic management plans are required, so that the overall potential for cumulative traffic impacts would be reduced. Therefore, no cumulative impacts associated with construction activities would occur. (Daft EIR, p. 5-11.) Consequently, the PVL will not result a cumulatively considerable impact for GHG emissions. D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Finding: Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with related projects within the area would not result in a cumulatively considerable addition to the regional air pollution and thus impacts from the Project will be less than significant. Supporting Explanation: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project could result in temporary construction related cumulative contributions. However, all cumulative projects would be subject to required best management practices for construction, such that construction emissions would not be cumulatively significant. On an operational level, the Project will contribute to regional air emission through commuter train use, although this would be less than the corresponding personal vehicle usage. Therefore no cumulative air quality impacts would occur as the Project would occur as the Project is consistent with the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the region which is based on General Plan land uses, and is anticipated within the General Plans within the corridor. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-5 to 6.) The production of energy is one of the major generators of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Therefore, energy usage by the proposed Project is a consideration in addressing Project impacts to climate change. The proposed Project is in compliance with required energy efficiency programs, and also proposes several design features that will reduce GHG emissions that could result in risks associated with climate change. The proposed Project is required to conform to Title 24, which is the California Building Code that governs all aspects of building construction. Standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction are included in Part 6 of the code. The Energy Efficiency Standards require mandatory measures to be installed in new 81 construction. These standards are designed to: (1) respond to California's energy crisis to reduce energy bills, increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to an improved economic condition for the state; (2) respond to the Assembly Bill (AB) 970 (Statutes of 2000) urgency legislation to adopt and implement updated and cost-effective building energy efficiency standards; (3) respond to the Senate Bill (SB) 5X (Statutes of 2001) urgency legislation to adopt energy efficiency building standards for outdoor lighting; and (4) emphasize energy efficiency measures that save energy at peak periods and seasons, improve the quality of installation of energy efficiency measures, incorporate recent publicly funded building science research, and collaborate with California utilities to incorporate results of appropriate market incentive programs for specific technologies. Accordingly, this analysis shows that pursuant to Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines (Energy Conservation) the proposed Project will not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. (Ibid.) E. Biological Resources Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on biological resources and thus impacts would be less than significant. Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project, within and existing rail corridor, will not cumulatively add to the loss of vegetation communities, and common plant and wildlife species. Also, the Project would be consistent with all the policies and guidelines of the Western Riverside MSHCP. The MSHCP is a long-range conservation effort with which all future projects must be consistent. Since the proposed Project is consistent with the MSHCP, no cumulative impact to biological resources is identified. Other projects in the area would also be required to be consistent with the MSHCP and as such cumulative impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-6 to 7.) Additionally, and as discussed above with regard to the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan, the Project is located outside of the HCP's core reserves but inside the fee area. Even though no SKR were found during any of the surveys of the Project site (See Revised Habitat Assessment Report (2009)), the Project will nonetheless voluntarily pay SKR mitigation fees pursuant to the SKR HCP. Thus, there is no cumulatively considerable impact to SKR. F. Cultural Resources Finding: The proposed Project will not have a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources. Supporting Explanation: With more development in the County, there is an increased possibility of encountering historical, archaeological, and/or paleontological resources. However, the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR1- CR4 would be implemented for the Project. Through recordation and curation of resources to provide the public and historians the opportunity to review these resources, the proposed Project and other development in the area would not result in a cumulatively significant impact. (Draft El R, p. 5-6.) 82 G. Geology And Soils Finding: The PVL Project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to geology and/or soils, as all impacts are site specific. Supporting Explanation: Although Project -level impacts may be considered significant and/or potentially significant for this or other projects, these impacts would be mitigated on a Project specific basis to below a level of significance. Therefore, the PVL Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to geology or soils. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) H. Hazards And Hazardous Materials Finding: Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with other development in the area would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact for hazardous materials since all future developments in the area would be subject to the same local, regional, state, and federal regulations. Supporting Explanation: Applicable regulations require individual site evaluation and clean up, and therefore would not contribute cumulatively. As with the proposed Project, environmental review would be required for future projects and compliance with County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health regulations would be necessary. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) I. Hydrology and Water Quality Finding: The proposed Project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to hydrology or water quality. Supporting Explanation: The EPA requires projects indicate a "no -rise" in flood elevations resulting from the Project development (whether one or all on the list) within the flood hazard zone, thus no impacts to hydrology. Additionally all projects in RWQCB Region 8 are required to meet the current stormwater permit requirements. These permit requirements include BMP provisions that ensure no cumulative water quality impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-7 to 8.) Under the higher warming scenario discussed under the GHG section, above, it is anticipated for sea level to rise 4 to 30 inches in southern California by 2100. In general, sea level elevation change of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Ibid.) Changes in climate would increase the risk of flooding and erosion from sea level rise or changes in precipitation, creating different drainage needs. The proposed Project is not at risk of flooding as a result of sea level rise; however, localized flooding does occur along the San Jacinto River and could increase in the future because of a change in precipitation. (Ibid.) 83 Changes in precipitation will alter the sources of water that currently serve southern California. A network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River to southern California. The current distribution system relies on the Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages. (Ibid.) If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. Under the lower warming scenario, snowpack losses are expected to be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snowpack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack would pose challenges to water supply managers, hamper hydropower generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow -related recreational activities. The state's water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California's estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta- a major state fresh water supply. (Ibid.) Ultimately, however, and as discussed previously, the project will not result in any cumulatively considerable GHG impacts. Thus, any impacts are less than significant. J. Land Use and Planning Finding: The Project will not generate cumulative considerable impacts with respect to land use and zoning. Supporting Explanation: Riverside County has adopted the RCIP General Plan to coordinate various aspects of the long-range planning process. As a part of this effort three plans have been created, including the MSHCP, the CETAP, and a Riverside County General Plan. The General Plan is designed to direct future land use decisions throughout Riverside County. It would combine the MSHCP and the CETAP recommendations along with land use, safety, noise, housing, and air quality guidelines. The plan advocates the extension of the Riverside rail service corridor along the SJBL. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-8 to 9.) The overall growth of Riverside County and individual communities is driven by market forces, employment, the cost of housing, and availability of land. The location, types and amounts of development are directed and shaped by local jurisdictions through their land use powers. The PVL is contemplated in the land use elements of the Perris and Riverside General Plans, as well as the County's General Plan; as such, the introduction of commuter rail service may have an influence on the types and timing of development, allowing local jurisdictions to develop more transit -oriented development as part of specific area plans. The PVL will accommodate existing transportation demand that exists within the I-215/SJBL alignment, and so, from a cumulative impact perspective, the proposed commuter rail service would not generate any new development. Further, the UCR Long Range Development Plan, Perris 84 Downtown Improvements, March Lifecare Village, various planned business parks and retail centers, and transit and traffic improvements would not be affected by the PVL. (Ibid.) K. Noise Finding: Construction and operational noise impacts will not be cumulatively considerable and thus the Project's cumulative noise impacts are less than significant. Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the PVL Project, in conjunction with cumulative projects identified would incrementally increase noise levels in the region. During construction of the PVL Project and cumulative projects, no cumulative construction noise impact would occur because construction activities would not be concurrent and in proximity to the PVL Project. Therefore, construction noise from the PVL Project and cumulative projects would not accumulate to result in a significant cumulative construction impact. During operation of the PVL Project the permanent increase in ambient noise is not considered substantial because it is less than 3.0 dBA. (Draft EIR, p. 5-9.) L. Utilities And Service Systems Finding: Development of the Project, in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to utilities and service systems. Supporting Explanation: As part of the engineering design for the Project, capacity for utilities and service systems is analyzed in conjunction with the service provider to ensure adequate capacity for both this Project as well as other projects related to the capacity of the overall systems. (Draft EIR, p. 5-9.) M. Transportation And Traffic Finding: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on traffic when considered in connection with other transportation projects planned for the region and thus the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Supporting Explanation: Other transportation projects are expected to be complete by 2012, with the effect of accommodating anticipated development and addressing select traffic flow problems that currently exist. The traffic analyses conducted for the PVL included these projects and concluded that no unmitigable significant adverse impacts to traffic and parking would result from the PVL. Consequently, the introduction of the PVL would neither improve nor deteriorate the effectiveness of these other transportation projects. Further, the Project could create a cumulative benefit through small improvements to regional traffic flow. The diversion of vehicle trips to PVL ridership would result in a measurable reduction in VMT. This improved traffic flow, however, may not be represented as a net improvement to LOS along the regional arteries. Overall, the PVL may result in beneficial cumulative impacts, including improved mobility and access for residents, workers and visitors, support of economic and community development in the region. (Draft EIR, p. 5-1 1.) 85 SECTION 5 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c), an EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed Project. For example, the use of nonrenewable resources, particularly mineral resources or land, either for construction or operations, may comprise an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, though the significance could vary, given the circumstances of the Project under review. Commitments of resources could be current, as well as future, the latter potentially associated with growth -inducing impacts, below. Construction and operation of the PVL would contribute to the depletion of resources, including renewable and non-renewable resources. Resources such as timber used in the construction of stations and other buildings, are generally considered renewable resources, and would be replenished over the lifetime of the Project. Renewable resources would not be considered irreversibly or irretrievably committed. Non- renewable resources, however, such as diesel fuel, petroleum products, steel, concrete, copper, and other materials are typically considered to be in finite supply, and would not be replenished over the lifetime of the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-1 to 2.) As the PVL would be developed within an existing rail corridor, the commitment of land resources to the use has already been made historically, and the PVL would not require the commitment of similar resources elsewhere. Further, some existing track would be rehabilitated and reused, thus accounting for a reduction in the amount of steel from the amount typically required of a similar rail project. At the same time, by introducing new track and a revised line configuration, the PVL would ensure the continued usefulness of the historic commitments of existing rails, sidings and the warehousing properties they serve to which resources are already historically committed. (Ibid.) The general demand for some of the resources listed above will increase whether or not the PVL is developed. The PVL Project would use less than the typical amount of steel required for a similar sized rail project. (Ibid.) Further, as the PVL is introduced to the region as a new mode of transportation, there would be a corresponding reduction in the number of automobile trips made in the region. Although the PVL would rely on petroleum resources to operate, it would result in a comparable or greater reduction in petroleum resources than would otherwise be utilized in the operation of automobiles driven without the PVL Project. (Ibid.) Other demands for energy, as associated with the PVL, would be related to the basic operations of stations and facilities, and to the greater extent, the electrical draw for parking lot lighting. While these energy demands in the form of electricity generated from natural gas, would constitute a commitment of nonrenewable resources, the PVL would not contribute to a significant increase in the rate of natural gas depletion. Moreover, the energy needs of the PVL would be met by the available market energy, and so it is reasonable to conclude that energy not utilized for the PVL would be available for use by others. (Ibid.) 86 The commitments of non-renewable resources to the construction and operation of the PVL would not be considered significant. Similar non-renewable resources demand would otherwise occur without the PVL and in some cases would comprise a net decrease in the use of nonrenewable resources. It is inherent to the public service nature of the PVL, that such commitment of resources would constitute investments directed toward the benefit of the public, as well as the prevention of environmental impacts that could otherwise be associated with automobile pollution and additional highway construction and expansion. (Ibid.) SECTION 6 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d) requires a discussion of the potential growth - inducing impacts of a project. This discussion addresses how implementation of the Project would foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly upon the surrounding environment. (Draft EIR, p. 5-2.) The PVL constitutes the introduction of new infrastructure and services aimed at providing a new mode of access between existing origin and destination points along the I- 215/SJBL corridor. It would not introduce new access to an area that was previously vacant or undeveloped, or remove access barriers. The PVL is contemplated as a new mode of transportation to serve populations already present in Riverside County, and accommodates the projected future population anticipated by regional and city plans. (Ibid.) Although the Project is intended to reduce congestion on highways, this benefit does not rise to the level of removing an access barrier to growth. Accordingly, the Project does not directly induce growth through the provision of housing or expansion of water infrastructure, and neither does it indirectly induce growth by removing an access barrier. To the contrary, the Project is merely intended to partially address existing and anticipated growth that would occur even without the Project. As such, the Project has a less than significant impact on growth. (Ibid) SECTION 7 RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Background Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision -making and public 87 participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In Subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives: (c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are:(i) failure to meet most of the basic Project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The range of alternatives required is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. However, when significant impacts can be mitigated by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that impact in its findings, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403; Laurel 88 Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) The Commission has adopted mitigation measures to avoid all potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR. Accordingly, the Project will not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Nonetheless, a full analysis of potentially feasible alternatives is provided below. The proposed Project seeks to achieve the following key goals and objectives: Goal 1 — Improve the Transportation System with Alternative Travel Choices: Objectives • To establish and expand the regional transit network within and beyond the study corridor. • To improve the attractiveness of public transit as a commuter alternative to the automobile, by making it available, reliable and convenient to use. • To reduce highway congestion in the corridor. • To promote a seamless regional transit system. Goal 2 — Promote Community/Transit Oriented Development: Objectives • To strengthen the older urban communities as centers of economic opportunity. • To broaden the range and availability of public transportation alternatives between the various urban areas along the corridor for a variety of trip purposes. • To encourage transit -friendly communities, at higher densities. • To foster transit -oriented development around transit stations. • To provide improved mobility opportunities to the transit dependent. Goal 3 — Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts: Objectives • To help reduce residential, commercial, and industrial "sprawl" development. • To conform to the State Implementation Plan as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. • To minimize impacts to the natural and human -made environment. • To reduce the need for new right-of-way resources thereby reducing land use impacts to the study corridor. Goal 4 — Invest and Deploy Resources Effectively and Efficiently: Objectives • To invest resources efficiently. • To improve the productivity and cost effectiveness of transit services in the corridor. • To enhance and build upon the existing public transportation system within the corridor. • To select investments that build upon underused and abandoned transportation resources. (Draft EIR, p. 3-2 to 3-3.) There are two types of alternatives evaluated in the EIR. First is the alternative that was considered but was rejected from further consideration. Reasons for elimination included failure 89 to meet basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c).) That alternative was: • Highgrove Station Alternative (Draft EIR, p. 2-4.) Second are the alternatives that were considered in detail. Those alternatives are: • No Project Alternative • Express Bus Alternative • New Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL • Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback • Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative (Draft EIR, pp.3-9 to 3-12.) A complete discussion for alternatives that were considered in detail is provided below. B. Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, one possible alternative was initially considered and rejected. This alternative was rejected because it could not accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project, would not have resulted in a reduction of potentially significant impacts, and/or was considered infeasible. The specific reasons for not selecting this rejected alternative are described below. The Highgrove Area Station Option The concept of a Metrolink Station in the Highgrove area has been raised by members of the public throughout the Commission's commuter rail planning process. In response, the Commission studied the concept on a number of occasions between 1994 and 2010. The studies consistently reaffirm that a Highgrove Area Station is not a feasible option for the PVL Project. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(0(1) [feasibility of alternatives can be determined based on factors such as site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure].) Below is an explanation of why the Highgrove Area Station is not feasible. Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the Highgrove Area Station Alternative because it (1) would introduce traffic and pedestrian safety impacts more significant than the Project itself and/or (2) is economically infeasible and/or (3) is technologically infeasible. Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Highgrove Area Station Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative. Supporting Explanation: During the planning period for the proposed project, site conditions have changed at the commenter's Highgrove area station site. The previously undeveloped 34± acres of private land now has an approved Parcel Map and Design Review (Planning Case P06-1506 and P06-1508) from the City of Riverside (November 2007) for development of the Citrus Business Park. Improvements to the property will include constructing 90 four new industrial buildings (509,787 square feet). Access was approved via Citrus Street; emergency access is via Villa Street. (Draft EIR pp., 2.4 to 2.9.) With public access to the site limited to Citrus Street, access across Springbrook Wash is the only way to access the two designated parcels north of the Wash. This area, north of the wash, was approved for two industrial buildings as part of the approval for the Citrus Business Park. The approved access is from a new crossing constructed on the western portion of the site, adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way. Since the approval of the Citrus Business Park, the two industrial buildings south of Springbrook Wash have been constructed. As such, the existing condition for the commenter's proposed Highgrove station site consists of two industrial buildings with access from Citrus Street and a crossing at Springbrook Wash at the western boundary of the property adjacent to the BNSF. (Ibid.) The proposed PVL project would construct the Citrus Connection on the two parcels north of Springbrook Wash. As discussed in the environmental document, the Citrus Connection would connect the BNSF main line with the SJBL/RCTC ROW via a short curved track to be constructed. This would replace the two industrial buildings proposed for this northern area. (Ibid.) In addition to the approved Citrus Business Park, the City of Riverside is scheduled to start construction of a railroad grade separation at Iowa Street on the BNSF main line. The planned grade separation would allow Iowa Street to be raised over the BNSF main line between Palmyrita Street and Spring Street. Citrus Street would remain in the current configuration but only a right turn in/right turn out would be allowed to and from Iowa Street. (Ibid.) It should also be noted that construction has started on the Spring Mountain Ranch development, along the northern section of Pigeon Pass Road. The Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD) is currently studying alternatives for roadway alignment through the development to connect Pigeon Pass Road with the City of Riverside. Currently, neither Center Street nor Villa Street (Highgrove area) connect to the east to provide access to the Spring Mountain Ranch area. The closest connection for Pigeon Pass Road would be at Marlborough Street which allows access to the Hunter Park Station. These alignments will continue to be studied by RCTD. (Ibid.) The planning began in 1988 when the Commission initiated studies of potential station sites on the BNSF main line to serve future commuter rail service to Orange County. As a result, the Commission decided to purchase passenger rail operating rights on the BNSF. As the Metrolink system expanded within Riverside County, existing stations were reaching capacity and various station selection studies were undertaken. Unlike other Metrolink member agencies, the Commission takes responsibility to fund the capital and operating costs for Metrolink Stations within the county. As such, the Commission takes into account both capital, operation, and maintenance costs when evaluating station locations. (Ibid.) Commuter rail station siting and selection considerations are based on a number of factors, including projected ridership and revenue; operational requirements; geographic spacing in 91 relation to other stations; right of way requirements and availability; local conditions such as surrounding land use and traffic circulation; and rail configuration. Additionally, both the BNSF and the CPUC prefer the Marlborough Station location over the Highgrove site. The BNSF is concerned the Highgrove station location would cause increased congestion on the main line and not be a feasible option (Project Meeting, February 25, 2009). The CPUC identifies the Marlborough Station as the preferred location because of the existing roadway access. The Highgrove station would require two new grade crossings while Marlborough would not require any (email communication, February 2, 2011). (Ibid.) From an engineering perspective, the Highgrove area station is infeasible for the reasons enumerated below: Prior to planning the PVL Project, the Commission received public input concerning the construction of transit facilities in the Highgrove area. The desired facilities included locating a station on the BNSF main line near Citrus and Villa Streets. the Commission has revisited the feasibility of this option numerous times in the past (1994, 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2009). In general, the concerns identified by the Commission in early evaluations have not changed over the years. During a January 2006 evaluation, the Commission identified the following key reasons to decline development of a Metrolink commuter rail station at Highgrove area on the BNSF. The findings included (ibid.): 1) Public preference was to expand existing stations (38%) compared to construction brand new stations (only 6% of the public wanted a Highgrove option when compared to three other station sites); 2) Constrained Operating Environment — Highgrove weekday volume ranks the lowest in comparison to the current train volumes for the five existing the Commission Metrolink stations. The closest station (existing Riverside Downtown Station) to the Highgrove area is only 3.7 miles away. The Riverside Downtown Station train volume is more than 4 times that of a potential Highgrove option. Riverside Downtown serves three commuter lines while Highgrove would serve just one line. 3) It was determined that the opportunity to have a station site on the Commission owned SJBL alignment, at a location just south of the Highgrove area (Hunter Park region), would be a better solution instead of needing to purchase property from BNSF. The Hunter Park Station would also allow for commuters from the Spring Mountain Ranch the shortest access via Marlborough Avenue or Palmyrita Street (which connects to the Ranch development directly). Neither Citrus Avenue nor Villa Street connect east across the SJBL/RCTC ROW to allow access to a station from the east. (Ibid.) Subsequently, after the January 2006 presentation, members of the public requested additional evaluations to determine the viability of the Highgrove Station option as part of the PVL Project. In February 2009 the Commission requested STV Incorporated to prepare a Highgrove Station Site Plan Study. The results of this study indicated 13 impediments to the construction of a Highgrove Station. On September 19, 2009, Barney Barnett submitted a letter rebutting STV 92 Incorporated's study. STV Incorporated prepared a response to Mr. Barnett's rebuttal by letter dated January 11, 2010. A summary of STV's response is outlined below (ibid.): (1) Reconfiguration of the Villa Street grade crossing would be necessary. This would include extensive and costly safety and engineering enhancements is costly and poses potential vehicular and pedestrian safety issues. In addition, the City of Riverside will not allow regular truck and vehicular access from Villa Street to the northern parcels in the Parcel Map and Design Review document dated November 8, 2007 (Planning Cases P06-1506 and P06-1508) that would cause adverse impacts the existing adjacent residential neighborhood. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has indicated, in a project email, dated February 2, 2011, that they will not allow a station at Highgrove because of the need to improve two at grade crossings when none require improvements at Hunter Park. (Ibid.) (2) Extending Spring Street westward through an existing vacant residential property and creating a new vehicular and pedestrian grade crossing creates risks of train and vehicular/pedestrian collisions and is not feasible for the same reasons as accessing the site from Villa Street. In addition, the CPUC has reviewed the Highgrove alternative and prefers the Hunter Park Station (Marlborough alternative) because of the close proximity of the two sites and existing crossings provide access to the Hunter Park Station (Marlborough alternative). The CPUC implementation practice for General Order Number 88-B is to not allow the construction of any new at -grade crossings when not absolutely necessary. The CPUC views new at -grade crossings at Spring Street or over the Citrus Connection track as not absolutely necessary because of the option for a station to be located at Hunter Park (email communication, February 2, 1011). (Ibid.) (3) The existing topography and evidence of substantial ponding on either sides of the crossing within the right of way (ROW) indicate serious drainage and visibility problems that would need to be addressed by extensive excavation and grading. Such work would add substantial construction and operational/maintenance costs and would also introduce new impacts to soils, geology and air quality during excavation. Thus, it's not "environmentally friendly" as commenter claims. (Ibid.) (4) Diverting traffic into Villa Street neighborhood to access the station parking on the northern parcels is not viable because the City of Riverside will not allow regular truck and vehicular access from Villa Street to the northern parcels. This limitation was stated as a condition of approval in the Parcel Map and Design Review document dated November 8, 2007 (Planning Cases P06-1506 and P06-1508). The City of Riverside indicated that Villa Street could only be used for emergency access into the site. (5) The original estimate in the 2009 Site Plan Study of 7 acres of available land for parking was based upon utilizing only the parcel north of the Citrus Connection track. Due to further design development and moving the Citrus Connection track further north to avoid the Springbrook Wash Conservation easement, the northern parcel area available for parking has been reduced. STV Incorporated has reevaluated the available land for parking and included a portion of the parcel south of the Citrus Connection track in parking land area calculation netting approximately 9.3 acres total available land for parking. Although, considering the size, shape and configuration of the parcels available, a less than efficient parking plan would be the result. 93 The actual area available for parking at the Highgrove alternative is slightly less than the Marlborough alternative containing 9.5 acres. The current total area north of Springbrook Wash is 16.47 acres. This 16.47 acres would then have the Citrus Connection track through the center of it which would allow for a "usable" area of 6.6 acres. Access to the approximately 6.6 acres on the north parcel would be dependent upon a vehicular undercrossing beneath the Citrus Connection track due to the access restrictions at Villa Street discussed above. The land area needed for an undercrossing would severely restrict the 6.6 acres available. (6) The Commission cannot limit access to the western drive to only Metrolink passengers. The existing western driveway is a shared access with the current property owner of the parcels (currently an existing industrial warehouse use) south of the Springbrook Wash forcing passenger traffic to mix with semi -truck traffic, creating an unsafe condition for access to the station parking. Per an easement in the CC&R's for the purchase of the property by the Commission, access from this western driveway must be maintained for the owner of existing warehouse development. Any parking facilities located within the parcel area south of the Citrus Connection track are limited by the California Department of Fish and Game 50' setback from the Springbrook Wash due to Condition 22 of the Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration imposed on the subject property dated 5/30/08. (7) The only viable location for disabled parking is immediately adjacent or in the near vicinity of the platform and the ticket vending machine which would be in the western drive and does not fit due to the placement of the adjacent warehouse building. The alternative is to place the disabled parking north of the Springbrook Wash which would impose an unreasonable travel distance (in excess of 800 feet) from the closest parking spaces to the ticket vending machine and platform for disabled passengers. (8) BNSF representatives have stated that they prefer not to have a platform in their ROW in this location due to operational congestion and track capacity because of the high volume of freight traffic on their Main Line (Project Meeting, February 25, 2009.) (9) The Highgrove Station would require an inner -track fence to separate the station track (4th track) from the three BNSF Main Line tracks for safety reasons. This would move the 4th track further east, thus requiring a design modification to the Citrus Connection curve increasing the degree of the curve causing decreased train speed, higher wheel noise, and higher maintenance due to the increased wear on the track. In addition, the minimum width with required clearances (approximately 44 feet) would force the platform to encroach into the driveway. Per an easement in the CC&R's for the purchase of the property by the Commission, access from this western driveway must be maintained for the owner of the warehouse development on the southern parcels. (10) There is adequate bus service to the area proposed for the Highgrove Station alternative, but there would be no on -site bus drop-off area near the platform because of the constrained space between the platform and the existing open access driveway. Bus passengers would be dropped off curb -side on either Iowa Avenue or Citrus Street. 94 (11) Reconfiguration of Citrus Street would be required. It is agreed that the Citrus Street connection to Iowa Avenue will remain unchanged. Because of the length of the platform and the required distance (150') from the switch for the Citrus Connector track, reconfiguration including real estate takes on the east side of the street would be required to move Citrus Street eastward where it curves adjacent to the BNSF Main Line ROW. This would result in an increase in project cost related to the property acquisition and the road reconfiguration. These costs would not be required for the Hunter Park station location. (12) A possible option to attempt to accommodate a station in the Highgrove location just south of the Citrus Connection is for the Commission to purchase the western -most building and property of the existing warehouse development on Parcel 4, demolish the building, and convert the property to on -site bus drop-off, disabled parking, and kiss -and -ride drop-off. This option is cost -prohibitive for the PVL project and presents traffic and congestion challenges due to the single entry and exit for passenger vehicles and buses. This would also require the demolition of the newly constructed industrial buildings at the site. Additionally, the vehicular access issues discussed above for the parcels north of the Citrus Connection would remain unchanged due to restrictions from the City of Riverside and CPUC. As a result of additional study subsequent to the Site Plan Study prepared by STV Incorporated dated 2/27/09, the difference in cost to locate a station at this Highgrove site is now estimated at an additional $45 million. (Ibid.) Many commenters suggested that the "existing" depot in Highgrove could be used as a station site to avoid the cost of constructing a new station. However, there is no existing Highgrove depot. The Highgrove depot was originally located just south of Center Street and was demolished in 1953 (DEIR Cultural Resources Technical Report, page 23). The former depot location is located approximately 2,300 north of Citrus Street and adjacent to where the BNSF mainline and the SJBL currently connect. This proposed location would only allow for access to the BNSF mainline and not the proposed PVL project because the PVL project does not travel that far north. Additionally, this area is a low income minority area that would be significantly impacted by moving services north of Villa Street. (Ibid.) For all the above stated reasons, the Highgrove Station option was not included as a component of the PVL project or as a feasible alternative, and therefore is not evaluated further within this EIR. C. Alternatives Considered in Detail in the EIR The following Project Alternatives were considered in detail in the EIR. These alternatives are rejected for various reasons as set forth below. 1. The No Project Alternative No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would be the continuation of current and long-range plans for highway improvements, and maintaining the existing rail corridor for continued freight service. There are several planned and programmed roadway improvements along I-215 to include widening this freeway between the 1-215/SR-60 interchange and Nuevo 95 Road, between Nuevo Road and Scott Road, and between Scott Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Even with current and programmed improvements that include additional general purpose and High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, I-215 is forecasted to continue to operate at unsatisfactory service levels. As evidenced by increasing travel times, the I-215 freeway cannot keep pace with the projected demand resulting from population, employment, and development growth in the study corridor. With the major transportation facilities in the corridor, I-215 and SR -60, unsatisfactory levels of service are expected to continue even with programmed roadway improvements over the coming years. Thus, there is a need for a new transportation alternative to accommodate current and future mobility needs. (Draft EIR, p. 3-9.) Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the No Project Alternative because (1) it would have greater impacts than the proposed Project in some resource areas, and/or (2) it would not meet the Project objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 3-9.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the No Project Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative. Supporting Explanation: The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the identified Project Goals and Objectives. This alternative would not provide a different mode of passenger transportation between Riverside and Perris (auto and bus modes would still be tied to the congested roadway network). Additionally, it would not reduce highway congestion in the corridor, thus furthering impacts to the natural environment with increased impacts to air quality within the corridor. The No Project Alternative would not broaden the range of public transportation alternatives between the various urban areas along the corridor and region, nor would it build upon an underused transportation resource within the corridor. Therefore, the No Project Alternative was eliminated from further evaluation, since it did not meet any of the goals and objectives for the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 3-9.) 2. The Express Bus Alternative Express Bus Alternative: The Express Bus Alternative consists of low -capital improvements to existing transit facilities and services that would operate on 1-215 HOV lanes between Downtown Riverside and Perris, as shown on Figure 3.2-1. To support this service, local feeder bus connections are proposed for the express bus route. Metrolink commuter rail service in Riverside would also benefit from any additional transfers from the feeder buses. The Express Bus Alternative comprises seven new stations within the 1-215 corridor and two existing stations, including the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station and the RTA Downtown Bus Terminal in downtown Riverside. The express bus service would be coordinated to reach the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station during peak periods such that connections could be made to departing (AM) and arriving (PM) trains. In addition, linkages to local bus route services will compliment the proposed service. Several local routes will incorporate an additional "express bus stop" in order to provide greater connectivity and faster transportation service between the municipalities in the corridor. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-9 to 10.) Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the Express Bus Alternative because (1) it would not meet a majority of the Project objectives, and (2) it is in feasible. (Draft EIR, p. 3-9 to 3-10.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Express Bus Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative. 96 Supporting Explanation: Although this alternative would meet some of the Project's objectives to some extent (EIR p. 3-13), it would not meet a majority of the four established Project goals and their respective objectives to the same extent as the Project (EIR p. 3-9). While improving the attractiveness of public transit as an alternative to the automobile this option does not reduce highway congestion in the corridor. The congested freeways, in particular the I- 215/SR-60 interchange, affect the ability for the Express Bus Alternative to provide congestion relief. The operation of this alternative would require the buses to continually cross highly congested mixed -flow lanes to use the planned HOV lanes between the new stations, thus adversely affecting their travel times and ridership. Ridership growth was projected to be minimal, largely due to longer travel times on the increasingly congested freeways. Minimizing environmental impacts for this alternative would also not be met as effectively as the commuter rail alternatives. Seven new stations are proposed for the Express Bus Alternative, the greatest number of stations compared to the other alternatives, requiring more right-of-way acquisition which increases land use impacts to the corridor. As a result of the longest travel time from increasing highway congestion throughout the forecast years, impacts to air quality and traffic would be significant. Lastly, while this alternative proves to be the most cost effective (lowest total capital expenditure) the performance of this alternative is insufficient to meet the needs of commuters in the corridor. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-9 to 10.) 3. The New Commuter Rail Alternatives Three build alternatives were identified that would implement commuter rail service in the corridor between Riverside and Perris. The study corridor includes an existing railroad right- of-way, the SJBL, which could provide a commuter rail route that would avoid the impediments to mobility that are found in the corridor and which cannot be adequately addressed by the other alternatives. The three new commuter rail alternatives are comparable because the alternatives are similar in terms of operation. Each commuter rail alternative extends the Metrolink 91 Line service from the existing Downtown Riverside Station to San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties. The differences in the three commuter rail alternatives include the various options to connect the SJBL mainline for service to the existing Metrolink station in downtown Riverside. The commuter rail service would operate during the peak period and in the peak direction. The operating schedule will be such that arrival and departure at Los Angeles Union Station would coincide with typical work schedules, in an effort to make the new service as attractive as possible to commuters. Different route lengths and operational considerations for each alternative are described in detail below. (Draft EIR, p. 3-10.) The Commuter Rail Alternatives successfully meet a majority of the Project goals and objectives. Specifically, these alternatives build upon underused transportation resources since track in the region is currently only servicing freight operations. Commuter rail service expands not only the regional transit network but also beyond the study corridor and promotes a seamless transit system. These alternatives would strengthen older urban communities as centers of economic opportunity by fostering transit -oriented development. Improving mobility through the corridor without the dependency to rely on and add to the congestion of highways. Since all three commuter rail alternatives would satisfy some of the above stated Project goals and objectives to some extent (see Draft EIR p. 3-13), the remainder of the discussion will focus on the goals and objectives, specifically in terms of environmental impacts, that would not be meet by each alternative. (Ibid.) 97 Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP Rail Alternative Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP Rail Alternative: This commuter rail alternative would connect the SJBL to the existing Riverside Downtown Station via the Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead (UP RIL) (an active freight service line) without connecting to the BNSF main line, as shown on Figure 3.2-2. A connection track would be constructed between the SJBL and the UP RIL near Rustin Avenue in Riverside. The new connection track would allow for continuous movement between the SJBL and the existing Riverside Downtown station. This commuter rail alternative with new Connection to UP RIL would include the construction of five stations. (Draft EIR, p. 3-10.) Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP Rail Alternative because (1) it would result in environmental impacts to land use, construction -related noise and air quality, and noise/vibration that are more significant than the Project itself, and (2) it is economically infeasible. (Draft EIR, p. 3-10.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP Rail Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative. Supporting Explanation: The new connection at Rustin Avenue would require acquisition of one vacant tract and a parcel that contains an existing building. In addition, a new grade crossing with signal protection would be required. The new track would require the displacement of a commercial property and acquisition of new property for a new grade crossing both which would have significant land use impacts to the corridor and come with an infeasible economic cost. Further, this option resulted in significant vibration and displacement impacts that neither of the other commuter rail alternatives would induce. Additionally, construction - related impacts would be worsened by the requirement to build a new grade crossing. Although this alternative would provide direct access to the existing Downtown Riverside Station with the shortest travel time, this alternative would require the agreement and purchase of the RIL alignment from the Union Pacific and the RIL would need to be reconstructed resulting in higher initial capital costs as compared to the other commuter rail alternatives. While the UP RIL connection provides an alternative to highway congestion in the corridor and builds upon underused transportation resources (see Draft EIR p. 3-13) it does not adequately coincide with the other Project goals and objectives, specifically as related to environmental impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 3-10.) Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative. The Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative proposes an alignment that follows existing track along the SJBL and switches over to the BNSF mainline, as shown on Figure 3.2-3 of the Draft EIR. The existing connection would require trains traveling in either direction to Riverside or Perris to reverse movement at Highgrove to continue to the next station. This alignment would join the BNSF main line track to continue on to the existing Riverside Downtown Station. FRA requires a safety check prior to a train changing direction. This safety check includes a brake check and a visual inspection by the train engineer, which results in significantly longer travel times. The connection to the BNSF track to reach the existing station in Riverside requires no new 98 construction for track, but included in this alternative would be the construction of six new stations. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-1 L) Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission rejects the Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative because (1) it would have greater environmental impacts than the proposed Project, particularly as concerns traffic and (2) it is infeasible (Draft EIR, p. 3-11.) Each of the stated grounds for rejecting the Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative is independently sufficient to justify rejection of this alternative. Supporting Explanation: The evaluation of this alternative revealed operational issues resulting from a significant delay caused by the turnback movement in Highgrove. The time needed to reverse the train and conduct the required FRA brake tests results in a significantly longer travel time, and would likely reduce ridership levels. Because it does not require additional track, the Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative would not need to acquire any new property to connect the BNSF and SJBL alignments (only acquisition of station sites). As a result of increased idling time required for the commuter train to make its reverse movement, travel time increases and so do air quality emissions. Because of the significant increase in travel times necessitated by a reverse train movement, this alternative was found to be infeasible. Additionally, the reverse movement will impact traffic congestion in the Highgrove area with the commuter train blocking grade crossings as it sits idle — introducing potential emergency services and business/residential access impacts. Although this alternative operates existing track and requires no acquisition for the track alignments, this alternative would have significant operational issues and environmental impacts. Therefore, although the Commuter Rail with Highgrove Turnback Alternative does meet some of the Project goals to some extent (Draft EIR p. 3-13), overall it does not meet the Project goals and objectives to the same extent as the Project, particularly with regard to minimizing environmental impacts and providing an efficient mode of alternative transportation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-11.) Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative ("the proposed Project") Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative: The Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative (Citrus Connection) proposes a new, curved connection track north of Citrus Street between the SJBL and the BNSF right-of-way, as shown on Figure 3.2-4 of the Draft EIR. The new connection track at Citrus Street would require a property acquisition, with no displacements. The proposed connection track would negate the need for a turnback operation as required in the Highgrove Turnback Alternative. This alignment would utilize the BNSF mainline to access the existing Riverside Downtown Station. This commuter rail alternative, the Citrus Connection would include the construction of four stations. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-11 to 12.) Finding: Based upon the Supporting Explanation below, the Commission found that this alternative best met the goals and objectives, while minimizing environmental impacts to greatest extent, and still being economically feasible. Accordingly, the Commission agreed that this alternative would be the Locally Preferred Alternative, and selected it as the proposed Project. (Draft EIR p. 3-12.) 99 Supporting Explanation: The evaluation of this alternative reveals that it does not have the operational constraints of the Highgrove Turnback Alternative and would avoid the environmental and acquisition impacts of the UP RIL Alternative. This alternative would have higher initial capital costs due to a new track connection at Citrus Street. The utilization of existing transportation resources would be improved due to the use of the existing and available BNSF and SJBL mainlines. The Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative provides the best opportunity to implement a quality transit alternative within the corridor that serves the goals and objectives of the Project, and one that is not impeded by either highway congestion or railroad operational issues. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-11 to 14.) D. Environmentally Superior Alternative Environmentally Superior Alternative: The Project — which is the Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative described above — is the environmentally superior alternative. Supporting Explanation: The alternatives were evaluated based upon the ability to meet the goals and objectives of the project. The matrix compares the alternatives in order to identify the alternative with the least environmental impact and best performing operationally and is shown in Table 1.3-1. RCTC concluded that commuter rail service would provide the best solution to the specific transportation problems in the study corridor. In April 2008, RCTC adopted the Commuter Rail with New Connection to BNSF at Citrus Street Alternative ("Citrus Connection") as the Locally Preferred Alternative. The reasons for adopting this alternative include minimizing the impacts to the community by reducing business relocation, reducing air quality impacts, and decreasing the amount of acquisitions without the need for displacements. This alternative most closely meets the goals and objectives established for the corridor, therefore, this alternative was selected by the RCTC as the LPA and the proposed Project in April 2008. Accordingly, the proposed Project is the environmentally superior alternative. (Draft EIR, p. 3-12.) SECTION 8 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The Commission hereby finds that the proposed Project would not have any significant and unavoidable direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts. Thus, a statement of overriding considerations is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093.) 100 SECTION 9 STATEMENT OF PROJECT BENEFITS State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, subdivision (a) requires "the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project." Further, State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, subdivision (b) requires that "[w]hen the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record." The Commission hereby finds that the EIR has identified and discussed all potentially significant environmental effects that may result from the proposed Project. The Commission further finds that, through the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR, all potentially significant environmental effects will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Thus, no statement of overriding considerations is required to be adopted pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093. Nonetheless, the Commission finds that the proposed Project will provide numerous region -wide, statewide, and local economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits to the general public and the local community. Those benefits include: 1. The Project will improve the transportation network and mobility in Riverside County. By extending passenger rail service into portions of Riverside County not currently served by rail, the Project will reduce dependency on passenger cars and trucks. (E.g., Draft EIR p. 4.1132.) Reducing dependence on passenger cars and trucks will in turn reduce highway congestion and thereby improve mobility for both rail passengers and those that continue to use the roadway transportation network. (Ibid.; Draft EIR p. 4.9-5.) 2. The Project will assist the County's local efforts, and SCAG's regional efforts, to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions that result from mobile sources. By providing commuters with the option to take rail for work, recreational, and business purposes, the Project will take cars and trucks off the road and thereby reduce traffic -related air quality emissions and GHGs in the South Coast Air Basin and Riverside County. (See Draft EIR pp. 4.3-13, 5-4.) Specifically, the Project will result in a reduction of approximately 34 million vehicle miles traveled per year in the project area. (Air Quality Technical Report at pp. 16-17.) This equates to a reduction of over 160,000 pounds of CO2 each day, with similarly large reductions in criteria pollutants. (Draft EIR 4.3-23.) 3. The Project will benefit the local economy by providing jobs and by encouraging the investment of local resources in local projects. Specifically, the Project will provide local jobs both during construction and during operation. Moreover, the Project will bring a valuable infrastructure project into the region for long-term operation. 4. The Project will help to meet and fulfill both regional and local planning goals. Several local land use jurisdictions have land use plans which anticipate and plan for this Project. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-5 through 4.9-7.) Additionally, the Project is anticipated and planned for by 101 the Regional Transportation Plan and also the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan approved for the SCAG region. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-5.) The Project's approval will allow the fulfillment of those long-term planning goals. 5. The Project will establish and expand the regional transit network within and beyond the study corridor. Currently, commuter rail services within Riverside County are focused around the Downtown Riverside Station, but do not extend along the 1-215 corridor or to the many communities in that corridor whose residents travel to Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange County for work and other purposes. The Project would extend commuter service into this underserved area, thus expanding the regional network of alternative transportation options. (E.g., Draft EIR p. 4.2-28.) 6. The Project will improve the attractiveness of public transit as a commuter alternative to the automobile, by making it available, reliable and convenient to use. Rather than requiring the residents of the Cities of Moreno Valley, Perris, and other communities to drive their cars into Riverside in order to access commuter trains, the Project will allow residents of those communities to access commuter train services in their own communities. (See, e.g., Draft MR p. 4.1-32.) This will not only significantly decrease the total vehicle miles traveled by commuter riders, but will also make access more convenient for the region's riders. (See, e.g., Draft EIR pp. 4.3-27 through 4.3-28.) 7. The Project will reduce highway congestion in the corridor. One of the Project's primary purposes is to provide an alternative to traditional car/truck commuting along the congestion I-215 corridor, which will continue to worsen in future years. (Air Quality Technical Report at pp. 16-17.) This Project will provide efficient and convenient rail options for commuters, thus reducing vehicle trips along the corridor and the traffic congestion that those trips engender. (Draft EIR p. 2-6.) 8. The Project will promote a seamless regional transit system. By extending commuter rail service into the currently underserved 1-215 corridor, the Project will provide a much -needed linkage between Riverside's Downtown Station and the Cities of Moreno Valley, Perris, and other communities along the I-215 corridor. This linkage, will allow passengers to travel from their communities, through the Downtown Riverside Station, and then into the Los Angeles or Orange County areas. (Draft EIR p. 2-3.) 9. The Project will broaden the range and availability of public transportation alternatives between the various urban areas along the corridor for a variety of trip purposes. The Project will provide yet another mode of transportation along the I-215 corridor by providing an alternative to traditional car/truck or bus travel. (E.g., Draft EIR pp. 2-5 through 2- 6.) 10. The Project will promote organized planning of future transit -oriented development. Because the proposed project would construct the necessary transit infrastructure, including commuter rail and stations services, future land use planning within surrounding jurisdictions can now take advantage of the Project infrastructure when planning for transit - friendly communities, at higher densities, and foster transit -oriented development around transit stations. By providing several rail stations along the Project route, high -density commuter 102 communities may be better able to locate along the 1-215 corridor. This is consistent with the goals behind SB 375, which urges local land use agencies to co -locate higher density housing with alternative modes of transportation, particularly along existing transportation corridors. In this way, urban sprawl into currently undeveloped lands will be discouraged, because it is anticipated that high -density residential or mixed -use development would be attracted to the Project's transportation services. 1 1. The Project will provide improved mobility opportunities to the transit dependent. The Project will be ADA compliant, and thus will provide a dependable mode of transportation for those who have medical conditions precluding them from driving. (See Draft EIR p. 2-11.) Additionally, the Project's affordable and dependable time -schedule will provide increased transportation independence for the elderly and non -drivers. (Ibid.) 12. The Project will enhance and build upon the existing public transportation system within the corridor. The San Jacinto Branch Line is a rail line that has been in existence for over 100 years. (Draft EIR p. 2-3.) Currently, however, it is underused. (Draft EIR p. 2-6.) Rather than constructing a new rail line in a currently undeveloped area, the Project would put this existing rail line to a repurposed use, thereby minimizing impacts while maximizing transportation -related benefits. (Ibid.) 13. The Project will improve local rail safety. The Project will improve the condition of the existing San Jacinto Branch Line through measures such as new ballast, welded rail, and other upgrades. (E.g., Draft EIR p. 2-1 1 through 2-12.) Additionally, the Project will improve at least 15 grade crossings along the Project's rail corridor, including pedestrian gates, striping, signage, raised medians, and other measures to minimize pedestrian and traditional traffic conflicts with rail operations. (E.g., Draft EIR p. 2-40.) Each of these measures will improve public safety. (Ibid.) RCTC has also provided funding and other support for the establishment of "quiet zones" within the City of Riverside. (Draft EIR p. 2-3; Final EIR Master Response #1.) The Commission hereby finds that it has reviewed and considered the above Statement of Project Benefits, and that it is an accurate and objective statement. The Commission further finds that the foregoing economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits will be provided to the public through approval and implementation of the proposed Project. Each of the benefits listed above, standing alone and unto itself, is sufficient justification for the Commission to proceed with the proposed Project. SECTION 10 CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR The Commission finds that it has reviewed and considered the EIR in evaluating the Project, that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the Public Resources Code, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Commission's Local CEQA Guidelines, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. The Commission consequently certifies the EIR. 103 p The Commission finds and declares that no new significant information as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 has been received by the Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR nor added by the Commission to the EIR that would require recirculation. The Commission certifies the EIR based on, without limitation, the following finding and conclusions: A. Finding: All potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. With implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the proposed Project would not have any significant and unavoidable direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on the environment. B. Conclusions: 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed Project have been identified and fully analyzed in the EIR and, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly achieve the basic goals and objectives of the proposed update have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed Project. SECTION 11 ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A". Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. SECTION 12 PROJECT APPROVAL Based upon the entire administrative record before the Commission, including the above findings and all written and oral evidence presented during the administrative process, the Commission hereby approves the Project. 104 SECTION 13 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. The custodian for these records is Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager/Clerk of the Board. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. SECTION 14 STAFF DIRECTION The Commission hereby directs staff to prepare, execute, file, and have posted a CEQA Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk's Office and the Office of Planning and Research within five (5) working days of the Commission's adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 13 day of July, 2011. Gregory S. Pettis Chair ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board State of California ) County of Riverside ) 105 Exhibit "A" Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 106 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN 0.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN 0.4.1 Introduction and Summary Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097, public agencies are required to adopt a monitoring or reporting program to assure that the mitigation measures and revisions identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are implemented. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code: "...the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the decision maker coincidental to certification of the EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) must be adopted when making the findings (at the time of approval of the project). As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097, "reporting" is suited to projects that have readily measurable or quantitative measures or which already involve regular review. "Monitoring" is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures, such as wetland restoration or archaeological protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require careful implementation to assure compliance. Both reporting and monitoring would be applicable to the proposed project. The EIR prepared for the Perris Valley Line (SCH No. 2009011046) provided an analysis of the environmental effects resulting from construction and operation of the project. A thorough scientific and engineering evaluation of each alternative was undertaken in compliance with CEQA, including the identification of measures designed to avoid or substantially reduce the potential adverse effects of each alternative. 0.4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Table To track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix was prepared and includes the following components: • Mitigation measure • Schedule • Responsible for Mitigation • Actions Taken to Implement Mitigation • Verification Mitigation measure timing of verification has been apportioned into several specific timing increments. The mitigation matrix is included in Table 0.4-1. Of these, the most common are: 1. Prior to construction of the project 2. During construction of the project 3. During operation of the project 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-1 July 2011 FINAL ENVIR ON MENT AL I MPACT REPORT 0 .4 MITIG ATION M ONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN T abl e 0.4,2-1 Mitigati on Monitoring and R ep orting Plan got: r� a . � ft gx S L ,�j. F ,. . 1 1 IO11 .? 1k ' " I11p .:. . rii 10, x 10 AESTHETICS AS -1: To minimize light spill over into reside ntial areas during construction, light atte nuating barriers or directed lighting shall be used. During construction • Construction Manager Installation of temporary barriers, or direct ed lighting, at each light s ensitive locati on BIOLOGICAL RESO URCES BR -1: The pro ject bio logist shall prepare and conduct pre -construction training fo r project personnel prior to any ground disturbing activities. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the target specie s of concern, its habitats, the general pro visio ns of the ESA and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provision of the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the ESA, the general measures that are being impleme nted to conserve target species of co ncern as they re late to the proje ct, any provisions for wildlife movement, and the access routes to and from proje ct site bo undaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. Prior to construction • • Construction Manager Project Biologist RCTC appr oves training program pri or to the start of c onstruction BR -2: Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas shall be located to minimize the risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other environmentally sensitive habitats. The project specific SWPPP shall identify appropria te construc tion related BMPs (such as drip pans, straw wattles, and silt fence) to control anticipate d pollutants (oils, grease, etc.). Prior to and during co nstruction • • Constructi on Manag er Project Biologist On -going surveillance by the Constr uction Manag er and Project Biologist 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-2 July 2011 FINAL ENVIR ONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT 0.4 MITIGATION M ONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Ty�'lYrf �p �`+¢ � �l' �+� , Si j f,l Y 'lz }„�t ' ' 1-sdK � i .; ,c5:x a�n��y� a P sF l..g tivri.f Ic�sUrL�. Mb sf ��y 1 1.'... It ,. 4 f?`y' rk .� k �a r '� +.. c#�0400 e, =err u .rW� ,,tPY46 . . ,g, .( 16".'Si) Z4 ",- 10 �Iti On F`Ar �. � � ti K+�. � - �, ,,h eta +'� - �r F ,�: tn�t+�men%,IVfIf1f���oXlr.,�-� .l'i, 5 ; , + ,'. , �' � fx h .� rl�ert��CaiI40:3'.:�` BR -3: Stockpiling of materials shall be limited to disturbed areas without native vege tation, areas to be impact ed by project development or in non -sensitive habitats. These staging areas shall be approved by the project biolo gist, and shall be located more than 500 fee t from environmentally sensitive areas. " No Pri or to and during construction • Constructi on Manager • Project Biologist On -going sur veillance by the Constructi on Manag er and Project Biologist BR -4: -fueling zones" shall be established at least 10 meters (33 feet) fr om drainages and fire sensitive areas. Prior to and during c onstruction • C onstru cti on Manag er • Project Bi ologist On -g oing surveillance by the Construction Manag er and Pr oject Biol ogist BR -5: The project biologist shall monitor construction activities at a minimum of three days per week throughout the duration of the project to ensure mitigation measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any target specie s of co ncern o utside the project footprint. Construction mo nito ring reports shall be completed describing field conditions and construction activities. The project biologist shall be empo wered to halt work activity if necessary to confe r with RCTC to ensure the pro per impleme ntation of species habitat and habitat protection measures. During construction • Construction Manager • Project Biologist On -going surveillance by th e Construction Manager and Project Biologist BR -6: To avoid attracting predators that may prey upon protected species, the project site shall be kept clean of trash and debris. Food related trash items shall be disposed of in sealed co ntainers and re moved from the site with regular trash removal, at least weekly. Pets of project personnel shall not be allowed on site. During construction • Construction Manager On -g oing surveill ance by the Construction Manager and Project Biologist 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-3 July 2011 FINAL ENVIRON MENTAL I MPACT REPORT 0.4 MITIGATION MONIT ORING AND REPORTING PLAN . y�+ .t lFk3R�i5%TaF l� a3�i --' . '^s3 .s , � , .5.. � 'i i N., �sl a-.. !i �i� & dy w �I�ir. $ QJ1:1{ii00. Oif . n L..K NH�ka4taKz a��,Tr .t .5x,3r4 .tea ak a z' 1 , ,..,. _ .. 4� w... . 5 `. 'S i � 1 6` "n` b ,.. M f .._ .r r �7�1 y .r y, r. r .. ; rTp . �, 'el! ape :§:.F71 et el! . . ti, i s' .. BR -7: If dead or injured listed species are During construction • Constructi on Manager Copies of all locate d, initial notific ati on must be made within three working days, in writing to th e • Project Biologist communication with USFWS and CDFG USFWS Division of Law Enf orcement in Torrance California, and by telephone and in writing to the applicable jurisdiction, Carlsb ad Field Office of the USFWS, and the CDFG. BR -8: Narrow Endemic Plants have the During c onstruction • Constructi on Manager Project Biologist to potential to occur in the areas near the San Jacinto Rive r. If Narrow Endemic Plants are identified 90% of the population shall be preserved, as required in the MSHCP. • Project Biologist c onduct the survey pri or to construction BR -9: There is a potential to impact western Prior to construction • Construction Man ager Project Biologist to spadefoot toads with the work on the San Jacinto River Bridge and Overflow Channel • Project Biologist c onduct the survey prior to construction Bridge. A pre -construction survey for western spadefoot toads shall be conducted within 30 days prior to site disturbance to determine if western spadefoot toads are present within the designated construction area. Should western spadefoot toads be identified within the constructio n area, the project biologist shall prepare a relocatio n program that shall be approved by RCA prior to implementation. BR -10: The MSHCP requires both protocol Prior to construction • Construction Manager Project Biologist to surveys and preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls. Pre -construction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take. If owls are fo und to be present, the following measures will be implemented: prio r to burro wing owl nesting season, passive relocation will occur and active burrows will be destroyed; after burrows are destroyed, • Project Biologist conduct the sur vey prior to constructi on 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-4 July 2011 FIN AL ENVIRON MENTAL IMPACT REP ORT 0.4 MITIGATION MONIT ORING AND REPORTIN G PLAN a .vim M k'F.' �'�Li/,,� �,sVV "{�/,h " t �.l t Y . n }1 ,,`i`rI?H+!{ 'fA''rf t '�S q-' �, :,., - 194 OnA reasure"' t ? ;.. �ti ' •° S at 2� b' ( �, t i Vit o .j �}.�f0. •��i '�Tt. . ti;x l�l+�igatti� n a . .,rte,-�r c`Ya r, r �"4.,� j�i� >i 11t� �e t i` a '< P. .m 1 S,�t artificial burrows will be created in suitable habitat that is c ontiguous with the foraging habitat of affected owls; a monitoring plan will be impleme nted to monitor the success of the mitigatio n program . _ .__,. ..g .� _ R.� ;.�. BR -11: If nests are identified at the billboards located on the 1-215 corridor, then a project biologist shall determine if the nests are active. If the biologist determines a nest to be active, appropriate buffers shall be use d until the birds have fledged and the nest shall be removed with the approval of regulatory agencies. Prior to a nd during construction • Constructi on Manager • Project Biologist On -going surveillance by the Construction Manag er and Project Bi ologist BR -12: There is a potential for impacts to southwestern willow flycatchers in the southern area of the Bo x Springs Reserve. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work proposed fo r this area shall be completed outside the bird bree ding season (May 15th to July 17th) [Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA), 2004]. During construction • Construction Manager On -going surveillance by the Construction Manag er and Project Bi ol ogist BR -13: There is a potential for impacts to least Bell's vireo in the southern area of Box Springs Reserve . To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culvert work proposed for this area shall be co mpleted outside the bird breeding season (April 10th to July 31st) (SAWA, 2004). During construction • Construction Manager On -going surveillance by the Constr ucti on Manager and Pr oject Biologist BR -14: The project is within the SKR Fee area. RCTC shall pay $500 per acre to the SKR fo r development outside the existing right-of-way. This fee shall be paid at the time of the grading permit submittal. The fee will include sites for the Citrus Connection, At time of grading permit submittal • RCTC Receipt for payment to Riverside County when the grading permit is submitt ed for approval 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-5 July 2011 FINAL ENVIRON MENTAL I MPACT REPORT 0 .4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REP ORTING PLAN .nl 71 `; yQ ,�,7 .. LtowK>.✓ ♦ ,, , t I., .i• k 1 �, x 3 f ^� y ..:. . `*l '� .., .T i i CF' f k' f L i � Rr- Z` l ,�" �� y't a�^'. ;a w , k- ..� . �.. � .� y :. � �..ir? t Y.. as� k:..9f�i . Mittgatao a Ii. 1h .tom"tif. v r; .r .?,. r .. ;i A'T f ,t-3 �u".r' '�yh � '" .°� Ti �?:r�i�` � x z �1�4 g ., h- k.. , .a±;;ti �4�, �. ed f{ .F4u .. E' .> <i_ ., i. '.`'. . 471 Wh. y/ ,%. % s` 61 o ? d �, is �y y, b f g„. .� r � f 13LI- �9atton .� gin �,,� <, �; _ 4 � : �� . 0. e■Y0 E }o r ... . fi 'uc! ' .; �1 �` )- 43� � � x •r� . . Y,u, . y . C an 1 �`:s.y n c e M io n,,;:`°1� , t ill. m..►%°. .that rr Y. t 4 i. ., t N'IV- }. � � .,} ,�, '�.!n }�:..i: ., E;p.' %. -` '�i y', A "S t;>�. 1 : . n.,? � >;,. ti�vl�? r_.t.. Hunter Park Station, South Perris, and Layover Facility (appr oximately 65 acres). BR -15: There is a potential for impacts to California horne d lark in the area of th e South Perris Station and the L ayover Facility if the agricultural fields are allowed to fallow. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, the ground preparation work shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (March 1st to July 315) (Co unty of Santa Barbara, 2009) and maintained to ensure that no birds then use the area for nesting prior to co nstruction. During c onstruction • Construction Manager On -going surveillance by the Construction Manager and Proj ect Biologist BR -16: There is a potential for impacts to the co astal California gnatcatcher within the Box Springs Canyon Reserv e. To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, culve rt work proposed for this area shall be co mpleted outside the bird breeding se ason (February 15th to August 30th) (SAWA, 2004). During construction • Construction Manager On -going surveillance by the Construction Man ag er and Project Biologist BR -17: Prio r to any co nstruction impacts to juris dictional areas, RCTC shall obtain permit approval from the USACE, CDFG and the RWQCB. The mitigatio n fo r jurisdictional area impacts will be to purchase mitigation credits for permanent impacts at a 1:1 ratio (total of 0. 085 a cres) fro m a local mitigatio n bank. The te mpora ry impacts, 0. 335 acres, will be mitigated by restoration/e nhancement on land o wned by RCTC near or adjacent to the pro ject area. Prior to construction • RCTC On -going sur veillance by th e Construction Manag er and Project Biologist 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-6 July 2011 CULTURAL RES OURCES FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT 0.4 MITIGATI ON MONITORIN G AND REPORTIN G PLAN CR-1: A qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall monitor ground disturbing construction activiti es between MP 3.50 and 4.50, and between MP 5 .60 and 6. 50. These monitors shall h ave the authority to te mporarily halt or divert construction equipment to examine potential resources, asse ss significance, and offer recommendations for the pro cedures deemed appro priate to either further investigate or mitigate any adverse impacts . CA-RIV-2384, CA-RIV-44971H and AE -CB -2 sites shall be avoided during project construction through the establishment of ESA and delineated by e xclusionary fencing. CR-2: Replacement of four woo d box culverts (MP 1. 60, 5. 30, 6.11 and 18.10) and two bridge s (MP 20.70 and 20. 80) along the SJBL alignment shall be mitigated by detailed documentation according to Historic American Buildings Survey/ Histo ric American Engineering Record/ Historic American Landscape Survey standards. CR-3: Ground -disturbing activitie s sha ll be monitored by a qualified paleontolo gist at the Citrus Connectio n, So uth Perris Station a nd Layover Facility. The monitor shall also be present at locations where excavation is anticipated to be deeper than four feet. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to a llow for removal of specimens. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR During constructi on • Construction Manager • Archaeological Monitor Native American M onitor Project Ar cha eologist to flag environmental sensitive areas (ESA) to exclude construction activities . The construction m onitoring activities will be described in field monitoring logs. Prior to construction • Constru ction Manager • RCTC • Qualified Historian A qualified historian will complete the HABS/HAER/HALS docum entation for submittal to the Information Center During construction • Construction Manag er • Paleontological Monitor 0. 4-7 On -going surveillance by th e Paleontologist Monitor with a ctivities documented in daily log sheets July 2011 FINAL ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT 0 .4 MITIGATION M ONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN YFF' ^*=.pvx:rd. � .Y r. a �°-�. `a 1: � ,�[a t. r' :!':'i �S 'r-h.tG"'� S i• b 3 'S7i�f . N asr Fi t e U ,... �t""`T� � rar X A a L 4,�' � �j :� ;"e„ ,,•;,�; .4of "�,� :fora 1, g r,criE#-ir w :rn sxat�F-�IUI��JaUa��leas����w��i':�asv '?�df� �'x �.Ti� .. .{��. }5{9 r y . '.. 'i n n. v, ' V; �l:. '^G Y7 '3,. I✓. .ti . n: , ;ias � �.. . E .,,. :, rrx4, 3r '.. ,�5!r '. .�ed�J.e"v.`Yt � .,.'� �'i . tx, .._@:.-;rearrp�. 3% .t -'s+ ..{. "�}r 'c{fi n :RX k, i• y 5%s -,s � .;;<C"s.. �.. c�, }r.. �. ..c, yIe , hX/�l. )5:�� ,i,. tt`ti`�'�i z k '�c�31!n��gaL��n.. . .. .o v u nf n.:J u a� .'1' V,'!1 F1 . .0:A � '. Qs,. a, �..4L r,. , 3s ,Ek,.r.� -`r 1 „ �,.��s�RUT'Ie�ei������t��� ,.v 'NaJ.vFlt:j4 .1j+>Nd L. �,1> .4k, K• ski J a`LY f7 .`.,.. rY n,ie�l'�' ea�l��:; ;,. any fo ssils unearth ed during project construction, and shall be prepared to collect sediment samples that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invert ebrates and vertebrates. To mitigate adverse impacts to any paleontological resources encountered during construction, recovered specimens shall be ide ntified, prepared for permanent preservation, and curated at the San Bernardino County Na tural History Museum with permanent retrievable paleonto logical storage. A repo rt of findings that includes an itemized inventory of specimens shall accompany the recovered specimens for curation and sto rage. CR-4: In the event cultural or paleontological resources are encountered during construction, ground -disturbing activity shall ce ase in the immediate area. A qualified archaeologist (cultural re sources) and/or paleonto logist (paleontological resources) shall be retained to e xamine the materia ls encountered, asse ss significance, and recommend a course of action to further investigate a nd/o r mitigate a dve rse impacts to those re so urces that have been enco untered. During construction • Construction Manager • Archaeological Monitor and/or Paleontological Monitor On -going surv eillance by the Archaeological M onitor/Pal eontologist Monitor with activities d ocumented in daily log sheets CR-5: In the event that unanticipated discovery of human remains occurs during project construction, the procedures o utlined in §15064. 5(e ) of the CEQA Guidelines shall be strictly fo llowed. These pro cedures specify that upon discovery, no furthe r excavation or disturbance of the site or any During construction • Construction M anager • Archaeological Monitor On -going surveillance by the Archaeologi cal Monit or with activities docum ented in daily log sheets 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0. 4-8 July 2011 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REP ORT 0.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN � .°.k Jk �_ M 134 .. iy4► VIP K �F:'.'.s .. `'[ . `4 � , ...� : .A.,:v Y'iat .rt�a .• ^.2 f r 1 tO k 1 . 9_ tt�. �+ur2'„� x _..� ,.. .._. .:.n., ). .�„� RaJa k'`+ u»�`yu' , , . - it Yi$�/ w,P �„ e� .. 'E y r ,� i"�' > tern ,; x;ee:C.' 4 7 S _ . �pil. I, —►,, OIL' ;: 'c' `rx "u S` 3 fir.• N b S .. s. Y z . t , �. M1 tAa#�. on ,. i '4 ` 1' y 1 ,.t •y, ; .k ,L �I�Pn•:r:� r OK* a uA�E 1 Il'S; �I:l [ t .' fr ., wd '� .. Q" a ,, M> g, :�'1tr�piemeht,° Ml igaft_ n, 4 i ^f. .` s,,, h Fti a?j? r ., u•, xE n cation nearby area reason ably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains can occur. The county coroner must be contacted to de termine if the remains are Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner sh all contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours . The NAHC shall identify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall make recommendations for the appropriate treatment and dispo sition of the remains and any associated grave goods in accordance with PRC §5097.98. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HHM-1: Soil contamination is suspec te d at the fo llowing locations: • 6400 Fischer Road, Riverside — diesel AST relea se • 13260 Highway 215, Riverside — gasoline UST re lease • 2 South D Stree t, Perris — gasoline UST release • 24 D Street, Pe rris — gasoline UST release • 101 and 102 South D Street, Perris — gasoline UST rele ase and waste o il release • 210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris — gasoline and die sel UST relea se Prior to construction soil characte rization shall occur and includes sampling and analysis, a nd drilling shall be coordina ted with and under the guidance of the Riverside County Department of Environme ntal Health. During c onstruction • Construction Manager Constructi on Manager to submit soil sample analysis to RCTC for are as where soil will be disturbed 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0,4-9 July 2011 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 .4 MITIGATION M ONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN t m- +tv ' • 4 G§ 3 t q � a 3 3i" `t y ,VPr,.;, }. � ` ''=F„+ "'��'. ef' ... .v . . e .. ?:, 5 "f1Aj 9atrts ASO( f)_ 'y u ;v to . � �. a ti' w 1}. ,, ,,f .'� , `. ' *,w "'a > , ..K= .: Ci"ed e , 4 ,e,�Y fr3tiu " .� w n. t . •z t� l@� h. L A,, '�t. ri H� $-i �' .�. hE a.d , .. u t Ig; tio�n;.' a? `: stw. .5;_. , y "". r ,: W q 'R /� w. � it �. .. ;a f7i KC� . .5' l.:r M, e .1 p ,.�,�,r e niPleme�Mit gafl sal c ? t �, t i "d > �n i. .�- ..Nr '. •:k . � : , /aal tan < RCTC shall contract with a qualified enviro nmental consultant to determine if the soil has been sampled, characterized and disposed of properly according to state and federal re gulations. • HHM-3: Prior to construction RCTC shall prepa re a traffic management plan. The traffic manage ment plan shall be pr epared in consultation with local jurisdictions to determine detour route s, length and timing of any closures, temporary access routes, signage, coordination with po lice and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access routes. An additional component of the plan shall be coordinating with loca l emerge ncy response agencies to identify emergency evacuation ro utes in the event of a wildiand fire near PVL facilities. This traffic manage ment plan is the same as the traffic management plan required by M itigation Measure TT -4. Pri or to construction • RCTC • C ontract or Constructi on Manager/contract or to prepare plan prior to c onstructi on and receive approval from RCTC prior to implementation H HM-4: See Mitigation Measure HHM-3 above. Prior to construction • RCTC • Construction Manager NOISE AND VIBRATION NV -1: Noise barriers shall be constructed at the follo wing locations (based on 30% Design Drawings): • NB 1: 10' high and 530' long between Sta. 264+00 and Sta. 269+30 • NB 2: 13' high and 570' long between Sta. 269+30 and Sta. 275+00 • NB 3: 9' high and 680' long between Sta. 283+00 and Sta. 289+ 40 Prio r to o peration • RCTC • Construction Manager The C onstruction Manager's bid package will be based on the adherence to all specificati ons called for in the Noise Barrier Engineering Plans 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-10 July 2011 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0.4 MITIGATI ON M ONITORING AND REP ORTING PLAN '1,i',` ��, ryry��� '. ri F a ##�` " k e Y a e * .. 1 L alP }}SJ "T. )h ' �i. . .*i ,,. �. SY ,�.+3;.� 4 Y " .Al i .9p to "4k'itl p... , r� ..y � ..� . ..:.. .w � �a Q, ,p �`hd'.T We . `-'-' vi r .4:;2�fcx. y•�^k , y e#; yta e.t w. ,. 'c ,<k, J :�H i" . iJY �, ,''i ice'. „ �:`,w i. f: .�.,. � __ . T Chd[ire:T E ..:" � �. `o. _ 'vli�a:. ...h3 }: tt �R yy� 1C •Li� PO nqg:� . !f. �i .:�y :' +S?7 ,-,,•,,,,-.,-,,,,,e,,,,,,, � li .., .(' a !I •A�3�J F: .5� , , ... #o ... ..:� . f Mu.Z... ...aF4�.ai (� ' �±.,(�>:,,,� {nk�S � 'O ;1j . �x �. i �j Q �lt�> a lQ J;� •4 ,R �,, mp e <t J 1�Q ,.LA .. _, cm'':rt� Mafiig� z:,.� �y / ./� T: 1',{:jy?,F;':i iC *:A. .piVj� a"` i. Yt ,, ,t 1 r�� 1 -�",� t a an_ �• • NB 4: 12' high and 600' long between Sta. 289+40 and Sta. 295 +40 • NB 5: 8' high and 530' l ong betwe en Sta. 297+70 and Sta. 303+00 • NB 6: 8' high and 800' long between St a. 303+00 and Sta. 311+00 • NB 7: 10' high and 800' long between Sta. 322+ 00 and Sta. 330+00 • NB 8: 11' high and 320' long between St a. 331+00 and Sta. 334+20 • NB 9: 13' high and 950' long between Sta. 323+40 and Sta. 332+40 • NB 10: 13' high and 250' lo ng between Sta. 332+ 80 and Sta. 334+ 80 • NB 11:9' high and 310' long between Sta. 336+00 and Sta. 339+10 • NB 12: 9' high and 310' lo ng between Sta. 339+10 and Sta. 342+20 • NB 13: 13' high and 380' long between Sta. 342+ 20 and Sta. 346+ 00 ., NV -2: Based on the topography and engineering constraints at seven residential locations and St. George's Episcopal Church (eight properties total), the use of noise barriers will no t provide adequate noise re ductio n. Improving the so und insulation of these propertie s by replacing windows facing the tracks with new sound -rated windows, as well as caulking and sealing gaps in the building enve lope , eliminating operable windows and installing spec ially designed solid -core doo rs, would reduce noise to be low the FTA impact criteria , and to less than significant levels. Sound insulation for eight propertie s shall be provided at the Prior to operation • RCTC • Construction Manager C onstruction Manager to prepare plan pri or to constructi on and receive approval from RCTC prior to implementati on 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-11 July 2011 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 .4 MITI GATION MONITORING AND REP ORTING PLAN ' ". y .` f rSf R �� , ' 'i.:,�,: 33' 1 vy,�{x <ei •. .,Klea"i ' .�C` .-g -. �A 1. .f. .rr V.! rC.. cz �.s'l s J. 0`ii ll' )'f<:.►1, �Ife"k iS 1y ..,_ , x I. _9 O " ¢ S, . �i:: af :x,f' .,�' �?� d .u( F: , i - rl ,Q :r'R,f , c ,La_u, a�x ..G , n e` �a.� t� q' eirdiFv/. . :t,,.. .. ..14,'L,`E c Yom+v .! w 4 x i uw y� �_ � .�.-, r ..:.. 1ai:fo►1Y 4� ..: r •`Y" 0 s '11aa ��a;y^�a1.Q aS`t' ; �' .,.,t 1�i IlL i.i� ,1. n .... :� > ..t' rev ..> . A �; 1tnP� ,r�eh� Mg�altlor� 4`Ot ;� . t+a acr' Na •: rtl .� .. .F, � `1f'�Ir��atf ti ns .__ . ,' following locations: • Northeast corner of the grade crossing at West Blaine Street (619 West Blaine Street) • Northeast co rner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (116 East Campus View Drive) • Southwest corner of the grade crossing at Mount Vernon Avenue (first home on M ount Vernon Avenue) • Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Citrus Street (1027 Citrus Street) • Northeast corner of the grade crossing at Spruce Stree t (first two home s on Kentwo od Drive) • Southe ast corner of the gra de crossing at Spruce Street (first home on Glenhill Drive ) • St. Ge orge's Episcopal Church NV -3: Ballast Mats: A ballast mat consists of a rubber (such as shredded rubber tires), co rk or other type of re silient ela sto mer pad that is placed under the no rmal ballast, ties, and rail. The ballast mat shall be placed on a co ncrete or asphalt layer to be most effective. Ballast mats can provide 5 to 12 dB attenuation at frequencies above 25 to 30Hz. Prior to operation, if resiliently supported ties are not used. • RCTC • Construction Manager Construction Manager to pr epare plan prior to constructi on and receiv e approval fr om RCTC pri or to implementati on NV -4: Resiliently Supported Ties (Under -Tie Pads): This treatment consists of resilient rubber pa ds placed underneath concrete ties. A resiliently supported tie syste m co nsists of Prior to operation, if ballast mats are not used. • RCTC • Construction Manager C onstruction Manager to prepare plan prior to construction and receive approval from RCTC prior 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-12 July 2011 FIN AL ENVIR ONMENTAL I MPACT REP ORT 0 .4 MITIGATION M ONITORING AND REP ORTIN G PLAN p? ?Fe'''h.T . cr :u ,< 4. ,_ e n i.. " wY ':3 _ (if�Sl; z�,�;... .. -. " _9 _ r . sc S3,,, ,,y-+i ., 5.f,�a1 Jr �b ' '4:�, Sx``f , ;. ea- t_ < . . a ' >c -4�ec + .v s; 'm '' _ e .w s ,LA g'<e r nP�'fY ation f ' '' ^` "z . "'" -" z � .y<F� m Q�' ,�,k� `r �- �."k 'yry�.y;" 7r>aeh Mt' to[le� M F;�2':". ? ��;�t±�5 ' concrete ties supp orted by rubber pads . The rails are fastened directly to the concrete ties using standard rail clips. *Impleme ntatio n by ROTC of eith er one of the above described vibration mitigation measures (NV -3 or NV -4) betwe en Sta. 263+00 and 275+00 will eliminate the 2 VdB impact predicted in the UCR area of Riverside (affecting a total of 14 homes extending approximately 1,200 feet along the eastern side of the proposed PVL alignment just s outh of Spruce Street and north of Highland Ele menta ry School). . to implementation _e TRANSPO RTATION AND TRAFFIC TT -1; Cactus Avenue at O ld 215 (for Mo reno Valley/Ma rch Field Station) Reduce north/southbound Old 215's maximum gre en time to 15 seconds during the PM (5-6 PM) analysis hour. This will reduce delays for westbound Cactus Avenue's thro ugh movement from 240 to 116 seco nds, and impro ve the overall intersectio n LOS from LOS F with 146 seconds of delay to LOS E with 72 seconds of de lay, while maintaining LOS C for Old 215. Design Prior to operation • RCTC • C onstruction Manager City of Perris Public Works/Engineering Administration Divisi on to implement traffic related actions. TT -2: SR -74 (4th Street) at D Street (for Downtown Perris Station) Reduce the maximum gree n time for the east/westbound SR -74 left -turn phase to 14 seconds during the PM (5-6 PM) analysis hour. The leve ls of service fo r north and so uthbo und D Street's through/left-turn movements, and the overall intersection, will Design Prior to operation • RCTC • Construction Manag er City of Perris Public W orks/Engin eering Administration Divisi on to impl ement traffic related actions . 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0. 4-13 July 2011 warlArAlljp FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REP ORT 0.4 MITI GATI ON MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN y! :, ... �P�����`.5 b y 9F �+�� �.�'��. Sc .x� .S •�u,�� � i; ,'3` ..G , ,, : .F ",M a' 7 k .3 " "1 '''' .v ... : ,�_>;, , r. .�9atra�;� _ ea[sufir,.���,�,� .�, ��� $,?,m ��'S .'P+ `� a. p ,+ ''�f Y �" F �+l ` C. w��, , > 0, ti .� � . x, z _ Y6 � t : - . \ h4 t4. �S ,.k� t.� ,v��lii~t9�tio�l . � K„ ,. 4' �r� ` , .. FA. � ` �• �� i q ..��mp���rt`1en� rat. 4,, ¢ �aL �c� ,"'s . ' 'i �?l 41 ��± _ Sian.: be improved beyond future levels of service without the project during the PM analysis hour with this mitigation measure . TT -3: Bo nnie Drive at southb ound 1-215 Design • RCTC Constructi on Manager to ramps (for South Perris Station) Install a new traffic signal. This will improve eastbound Bonnie Drive 's right -turn movement from LO S F to LOS B during the Prior to operation • Construction Manager design the prop osed signal and receive appr oval from RCTC and/or Public Works/Engine ering PM (5-6 PM ) analysis ho ur and left turn movement from LOS F to LOS C during the Administration Division prior to implementation . AM (6-7 AM) and PM analysis hours. * RCTC shall design the above -proposed impro vements, and execute agre ements with the a ffected jurisdictions to provide funding for the installation of the signals or to install the signals in co njunction with the development of the project. With these mitigation measures in pla ce, the significant impacts of the propo se d project at the three above -mentio ned inte rsections will be eliminated (out of the six loca tio ns where significant impacts are expecte d). At the remaining three locations where significant impacts are expected (San Jacinto and Redlands Avenues, SR -74 at northbound 1- 215 O ff -Ramp, and SR -74 at Sherman Road), traffic signals are planned to be installed by other projec ts (unre lated to the PVL) as part of the future condition without the project. Therefore, no mitigation measures will need to be implemented by the proposed PVL project at these intersections. However, in the event that the signalization of these three locations by other projects (unrelated to the PVL) does not occur prior to 92666/SDI10R112/PVL FEIR 0.4-14 July 2011 FINAL ENVIR ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN �" .�r'�`� y�i4 r. xr' '. 31. l Jf Y .;, M h ��X 4 ., , r• .z t__9a�Qr%.I OAS, ;w{ . ,r, , 'i'M1`e: • ; it � ..: v" . n.,,r .t�, :fir Si :a .2 ieth fe .A -`^'rne:sYt; �SP;� ,?�' 4�. ;lgalt or1 S>� .,2r ii�f v,.,_ -'-. y[� .�n t,:f' s TOV4, ,, �hc mppeimiier t Mitig tUtjon r� , ' ,p en i fi:. ' r t r the 2012 opening y ear of the PVL, the installation of traffic signals at these additional locations will be incorporated as PVL project features. ,. . .. a,:.. TT -4: RCTC shall develop a traffic management plan in consultation with local jurisdictions to minimize impacts to existing traffic levels of service. At a minimum, th e traffic management plan shall address: detours; coordinatio n with o ther construction projects (if applicable); length and timing of any street closure s; length a nd timing of any gra de crossing closures; coordination with police and fire departments regarding changes in emergency a ccess routes; te mporary access routes and signage if any commercial properties are affected; and contact information for RCTC and its contractors. Prior to c onstructi on • • RCTC C ontractor Constructi on Manager/c ontract or to prepare plan pri or to construction and receive approval from RCTC prior to implementati on . 92666/SD110R112/PVL FEIR 0. 4-15 July 2011 GRESHAM SAVAGE July 12, 2011 VIA E-MAIL [erosso@rctc.org], FACSIMILE (951) 787-7920, AND U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL Tracy.Owens@GreshamSavage.corn San Bernardino Office (909) 890-4499 • fax (909) 890...9877 Ms. Edda Rosso Capital Projects Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: Opposition to Perris Valley Line Project Dear Ms. Rosso: This office represents Riverside Unified School District ("RUSD"), and is submitting this letter on behalf of RUSD to further expand on concerns with the Perris Valley Line Project ("PVL" or "Project") passenger rail service expansion, as is currently proposed, for approval by the Commission on July 13, 2011. We have previously provided comments to both the Perris Valley Line Draft EIR ("DEW", State Clearinghouse No. 2009011046) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), as well as the Supplemental Environmental Assessment ("SEA") prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), dated May 21, 2010 and January 6, 2011, respectively. Both comment letters expressed numerous concerns regarding the PVL and its potential adverse impact on the safety of children attending both Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools, located short distances from the existing rail -line. RCTC provided responses to our comment letter to the DEIR on June 30, 2011. Although we appreciate the willingness of the RCTC staff to engage in discussions to reach an amicable and mutually agreeable resolution of RUSD's concerns, based on our review of the responses, the Final EIR ("FEIR") and staff report materials, we believe that the PVL Project still poses serious safety risks to students and staff at Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools which have not been adequately analyzed and mitigated in the FEIR. For this reason, we urge the Commission to continue its consideration of the proposed PVL Project to a later date, to allow for more time to reach mutually acceptable solutions to the issues discussed herein. t.l:;i‘cnity Avenue, Suite 250 + Sic r„zi=. California 9:'501 550 Last Ilospttalrty I rne. Suite '3f)t`? • San Bernardino. California Ms. Edda Rosso July 12, 2011 Page 2 Below are the continuing concerns with the Project and the legal adequacy of the FEIR. As always, RUSD is open to further discussing adequate resolution of these outstanding issues. This letter highlights only the major issues of concern that are still inadequately addressed by the FEIR; however, each of the issues raised in our previous comment letters are incorporated herein by reference, and are still relevant for consideration by the Commission. • RUSD was not provided with a complete copy of the Responses to Comments within the timeframe required by CEQA. Section 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the lead agency to provide a commenting agency with a response to its comment letter at least 10 days prior to taking action to certify an EIR. The responses to our May 21, 2010 letter were received within this timeframe, but referred to "Master Responses" in over forty locations, but were not included or attached. Although we appreciate that RCTC provided a copy of the Master Responses upon request, the Master Responses were still not provided in the timeframe required under Section 15088(b), which denied RUSD adequate time for review of the full Responses to Comments. • The project description remains unchanged and still is not descriptive enough to allow for a complete understanding of exactly what work will take place along the rail segments closest to Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools. • With regard to the depth of the jet fuel pipeline that is in close proximity to Highland Elementary School, Response L3-10 states that: "[D]uring construction, areas within RCTC ROW where the fuel line is less than three feet deep, a non -permeable material will be placed over the fuel line where soil erosion has taken place." However, this is not included within the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan contained in Section 0.4 of the FEIR, and should be included as an enforceable mitigation measure. • Response L3-14 states that: "because construction for the PVL project would comply with all applicable Kinder Morgan construction requirements, the project would not have significant impacts for construction work around the pipeline and no mitigation measures are required." Admittedly, based on this statement, potentially significant impacts to the jet fuel pipeline could occur during construction if the Kinder Morgan protocol is not followed. Thus, adherence to all applicable Kinder Morgan construction requirements as outlined in Response L3-14 must be included as enforceable mitigation measures for the PVL project. • RUSD's request to limit the hours of construction activities adjacent to Highland Elementary to those hours when school is not in session was Ms. Edda Rosso July 12, 2011 Page 3 dismissed as "infeasible". Contrary to Response L3-17, this request was not due to noise concerns, but rather to ensure that as few children as possible would be exposed to risks from damage to the jet fuel pipeline during construction. RUSD did not request that this limitation apply to early morning and evening hours, but suggested a mitigation measure that would only prevent construction near the jet fuel pipeline during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. This request appears to have been summarily dismissed with no justification other than that "the constriction period would be extended and the ability to complete the proposed project within a reasonable period of time would be substantially compromised." This conclusion does not appear to be consistent with the magnitude and severity of the risk that RUSD's suggested mitigation measure was intended to reduce. • No pipeline risk analysis was conducted, as suggested in our May 21, 2010 letter. Instead, Response L3-12 summarily dismisses this request, stating that the 1,500 foot guideline established by the California Department of Education is inapplicable because Highland Elementary School is an existing school site. Regardless of the zone of analysis set by state law for siting of new schools, common sense dictates that a pipeline risk analysis should be conducted where a jet fuel pipeline exists a mere 50 feet from an elementary school, within the railroad right-of-way. • In March 2011, RCTC caused the preparation of an "Analysis of Safety Issues for the Proposed Commuter Rail Service on the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Perris Valley Line in the Vicinity of Highland and Hyatt Schools" by Zeta -Tech ("Zeta -Tech Study"). This constitutes significant new information that was not circulated as part of the EIR or made available for public review and comment, as is required under CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5. RUSD was not aware of the existence of the Zeta -Tech Study until the release of the FEIR, and would have appreciated the opportunity to review and comment on the Zeta -Tech Study at an earlier date. We disagree with RCTC's conclusion in Master Response #11 that recirculation was not required on the basis that no new, significant impacts would result, because as outlined below, the Zeta - Tech Study actually identified a new potentially significant impact that could occur from derailment if train speeds at Highland Elementary were not limited to 30 miles per hour, as discussed below. This failure to recirculate the EIR with the Zeta -Tech Study included renders the EIR defective as an informational document.' Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines 15088.5; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112; Save our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County $d. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 99,131. Ms. Edda Rosso July 12, 2011 Page 4 • The finding that "no significant impacts" will occur from derailment risks is dependent upon train speeds of approximately 30 miles per hour at Highland Elementary School, and train speeds of less than 30 miles per hour at Hyatt Elementary School. Master Response No. 10 states that with regard to Hyatt Elementary, "train speeds in that area are estimated at less than 20 miles per hour." In fact, the Zeta -Tech Study specifically states that: "Based on the risk analysis presented here, it is recommended that passenger train speed be limited to 30 mph in the vicinity of the Highland School". (Zeta -Tech Study, at 7, fn. 9). Thus, the Zeta -Tech Study infers that a potentially significant impact could occur from derailment if train speeds are not so limited. However, there is no such speed limit currently in effect; and a 30 mph speed limit is not included within the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan contained in Section 0.4 of the FEW. Speed limits along track segments adjacent to both elementary schools should be included as enforceable mitigation measures. • The distance analysis in Response L3-21 still fails to account for the fact that the playground of Hyatt Elementary is at least 20 feet below the grade of the rail right-of-way, and fails to account for the potential additional velocity if rail cars were to slide down the slope. • The FEW is contradictory and inconsistent in its discussion of the landscape walls. For example, Response L3-7 states that the landscape walls are "supplemental design features, not mitigation for any identified impact". However, Response L3-7 goes on to state that at Hyatt Elementary School, "excavated soil will be used to create an earthen berm against the landscape wall" and that "the objective of the wall is to minimize the risk of rail cargo and debris reaching the school grounds in the event of a train accident." This suggests that potentially significant impacts could occur from derailment, yet the landscape walls are not included as enforceable mitigation measures. There is also no discussion of engineering or design of the walls or their efficacy as a debris and cargo barrier. Response L3-7 merely states that the wall will be "of similar material to a noise barrier, concrete block." • The Zeta -Tech Study's derailment risk analysis is based solely on train weight and speed, and does not take into account high curvature, heavy grade, track conditions, number or volume of trains in reaching its "freight train energy calculation." Zeta -Tech Study, at 7). As a result of this "ratio of passenger energy to freight energy" stated to be "62.6%", the report states that "...it can be seen that the passenger train will develop 63% of the energy developed by a freight train at this location should a derailment occur. This more than compensates for the small increase in derailment risk associated with the addition of the passenger trains, with a resulting combined risk of the order of Ms. Edda Rosso July 12, 2011 Page 5 90% of the current freight operations." Not only is this analysis unclear, but it seems to only account for the severity of a derailment, not the risk of occurrence. The Zeta -Tech Study goes on to mention the "severe nature of the track alignment in the vicinity of the Hyatt School, with severe grade and curvature conditions", but dismisses this risk due to track upgrades and improvements that will occur as part of the PVL Project. (Zeta -Tech Study, at 13). In sum, the Zeta -Tech study cannot provide adequate support for its mathematical quantification of risk, and thus none of the concerns related to risks to Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools from potential derailment have been adequately addressed. • Master Response 8 states that "Poarch Road in Riverside...would be closed by the PVL project." However, Response L3-28 goes on to state that "In the event of a derailment near Hyatt Elementary School, emergency response would be able to reach the train by entering the RCTC ROW at Poarch Road...". This is inconsistent, and highlights the fact that emergency response concerns have not been adequately addressed. • In response to comments regarding potential impacts to children from construction emissions, Response L3-30 pertains only to operational emissions. Contrary to Response L3-31, compliance with SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds are regional in nature and do not negate potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors, nor do they relieve RCTC of the responsibility to evaluate such impacts under CEQA and prepare a health risk assessment and localized emissions analysis for construction emissions. • In reviewing the revisions contained at Section 0.2 of the FEW, several traffic mitigation measures (TT -3, TT -5 and TT -6) appear to have been deleted on the basis that the traffic signals contemplated by these mitigation measures are planned to be installed by other projects (unrelated to the PVL Project) as part of the future conditions without the Project. However, this reasoning is contrary to well -established CEQA case law, which states that traffic improvements which are assumed to be in place in the future to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts are only sufficient if those measures are based on a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing.2 That is not the case here. In the absence of any mechanism for RCTC to ensure that these traffic improvements are completed, the FEIR 2 Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Ca1.App.4th 1173, 1187, citing to Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Ca1.App.4th 342, 363-364; Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Ca1.App.4th 99, 141; Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1029; Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Ca1.App.4th 1252, 1261-62. Ms. Edda Rosso July 12, 2011 Page 6 contains no legally adequate basis for the deletion of these traffic mitigation measures. In sum, the PVL Project and its proximity to Hyatt and Highland Elementary Schools result in attendant risks to student life and safety that— as a policy matter — cannot be quantified, and even from a purely technical perspective, have not been adequately quantified within the environmental documents. Thus, based on the current environmental documentation there is no legal basis for the Commission to determine these impacts to be "less than significant". Furthermore, certain feasible measures as identified above (i.e., additional coverage of the pipeline, adherence to Kinder Morgan construction requirements, prohibition of construction hours near pipeline during school hours, and a 30 mph speed limit) which could potentially reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level have not even been included as legally enforceable mitigation measures. Yet, CEQA mandates that a lead agency should not approve a project as proposed, if there are feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project.3 We appreciate RCTC's willingness to work with RUSD to explore mutually acceptable solutions to ensure the safety of students and staff. Until this occurs, however, we urge the Commission to continue its consideration of the PVL Project until the environmental issues outlined in our letter and previous correspondence have been fully and adequately addressed through enforceable mitigation measures —or alternatively, to deny the PVL Project as it is currently proposed. Very truly urs, Tracy M. Owens, for GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation TMO:ld cc: Dr. Rick L. Miller, RUSD Superintendent Dr. Kirk Lewis, RUSD Assistant Superintendent, Operations Mr. Michael H. Fine, Deputy Superintendent Ms. Janet Dixon, RUSD Director, Planning & Development Riverside Unified School District Board of Education 3 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002; 21081 (a); 21081.5. To: Riverside County Transportation Commission July 12, 2011 by email Re: Comments on Perris Valley Line Environmental Impact Report for the Perris Valley Line, Riverside County, California, Agenda Item 10 for the July 13, 2011 RCTC meeting. Please consider the comments herein on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Penis Valley Line Metrolink (PVL). This letter is being written on behalf of residents of the UCR neighborhood, including myself, and on behalf of Friends of Riverside's Hills. I request that this letter be part of the public record. The UCR neighborhood is the residential neighborhood extending north and east of the University of California Riverside campus, between the campus and the Box Springs Mountains. The route of the PVL, along the San Jacinto Branch Line railroad right of way (SJBL), goes through the UCR neighborhood from about MP 1.7 (north of Spruce St.) to about MP 5.1 (north of Gernert Rd), including passing close by hundreds of residences plus two public elementary schools, child care centers, churches, and parks. Friends of Riverside's Hills is a California non-profit corporation concerned with protecting the environment in the western Riverside County area. The EIR is seriously deficient. As discussed below, there are a number of potentially significant impacts that the EIR fails to consider or fails to analyze adequately, including impacts for which consideration is segmented, deferred, and/or evaded entirely. These deficiencies need to be corrected and the EIR recirculated. In what follows, FEIR1 indicates vol. 1 of the FEIR, FEIR2 indicates vol. 2 of the FEIR which is the revised July 2011 version of the DEIR, and SEA indicates the Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the PVL. When referring to page numbers in documents, for the convenience of the reader an attempt has been made to also include the page number in the PDF version of the document. Foreseeable future double tracking The RCTC DCManual, at p. 15, states "All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.4 General Configuration shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. • The PVL will be double tracked along some of its alignment and potentially in the future along the full alignment. BNSF will be providing freight service along the PVL with most of their customers located along the west side of the property. Potentially the western most track will be allocated for BNSF freight service, with sporadic Metrolink use, therefore the platform design should anticipate this rail usage and the platform/s should be placed accordingly." (emphasis added) Elsewhere (RCTC DCManual, p. 31), the single track is described as just a "start up condition": "Based on the start up conditions, single track, an Undercrossing at this [UCR} station location would not be necessary." (emphasis added) While the language about double -tracking does not say that double tracking is certain to be done, it implies that it will be done. Compare the quite different language used in the RCTC DCManual (at p. 19) on a different issue for which future action is less certain: "At the time of issuance of this manual it is not anticipated that pedestrian overcrossing will be required at any of the proposed Stations along the PVL. Even though overcrossings are not envisioned at this time, the platforms should be constructed to allow their placement in the future if necessary." (emphasis added) In contrast, the language referring future double tracking shows that it is a reasonably foreseeable improvement. Moreover, future double tracking through the part of the ROW along the base of Box Springs Mountain and through the UCR neighborhood would involve grading of steep slopes (some of hard granite) and work adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas and residences, schools and churches. It would also involve staging impacts similar to those discussed above. Thus it would have significant environmental impacts. Therefore the EIR is segmenting and deferring consideration of those impacts by not considering them now, in violation of CEQA. 7. Further evidence that the above project improvements (station amenity expansion, maintenance road, double tracking) are reasonably foreseeable Here is the evidence: The RCTC Sept. 2009 Meeting Agenda Item 7F, p. 3,4: states "Additional MOUs/Agreements/Amendments It is anticipated that four additional MOUs, agreements, or amendments will need to be entered into for the continuation of SCRRA's support during design, construction, operations and maintenance, and future improvements along the PVL. The scope and timing of these MOUs is summarized below Future Improvements Along the PVL This MOU will detail SCRRA requested future improvements to the PVL after the initial two years of operations. Certain scope items requested by SCRRA were determined to not be needed for the opening of revenue service in 2012, but will be needed for the efficient and cost-effective long term operations on the PVL. This MOU will outline these requested improvements and the anticipated schedule to implement the improvements after the initial two years of operations. Additional items may be identified during the initial operations and they will be included in this MOU. This MOU will be the subject of a future agenda item near the end of the first two years of operations. It is anticipated that it will be presented to the Commission in late 2014." (emphasis added) It is improper segmentation, deferral or evasion of environmental review, in violation of CEQA, to not provide such review as part of the current EIR. Construction Noise In the Project Description section, Track Improvements, the DEIR2 at p. 2-14 (=50) says "MP 1.40 to MP 5.10 (approximately Marlborough Avenue south to Poarch Road): The track would be upgraded with new concrete ties, new welded rail, and new ballast as required." It should be noted that this segment, from a point between Marlborough and Spruce to a point north of Poarch/Gernert Rds, is the segment through the UCR neighborhood, with its hundreds of residences near the tracks, some of them as close as about 60 ft from the tracks (as shown e.g. in the SEA noise measurement Tables 3.4-5, 3.4-5 and 3.4-7 and in the site descriptions in SEA Tech Report C Appendix F, p. 31 et seq.). The DEIR2, p. 4.10-37, 38 (321, 322) states "Although the overall length of construction for the entire PVL project would be approximately 18 months, disturbances at individual receptor locations would not last for more than several months. . . . both sporadic and temporary increases in construction noise above local construction noise ordinances levels may occur. Any temporary increases would be based on potential occurrences of atypical events given the inconsistent and transitory nature of some construction activities and equipment usage. Consequently, the contractor would be required to use standard construction noise control measures such as temporary construction noise barriers, low noise emission equipment, and the use of acoustic enclosures for particularly noisy equipment to reduce the likelihood of any increases in construction noise above the local noise ordinance maximum levels.... According to the PVL Construction Staging Plan, some night-time construction is scheduled to occur specifically for new track layout. Because local codes allow construction only during day -time hours, any project -related night-time construction activity would require the project to obtain from the municipality written consent for an exemption, or variance to these codes." (emphasis added) Such variances while solving legal problems would result in significant environmental impacts since noise levels would exceed jurisdictional standards. The DEIR2 at p. 4.10-38 (=321), with "Other locations referring to other locations than for pile driving associated with the bridge replacements near the South Perris Layover Facility, states "Other locations along the alignment would also be potentially impacted by construction noise. To determine whether construction of the proposed PVL project would result in any noise impacts to sensitive receptors at these locations, an FTA general assessment procedure for construction noise was conducted for a representative residential location at 228 C Street in Perris. This location was chosen because it would be representative of a property which would be affected by typical track laying construction represented by activities such as culvert modifications and embankment work as well as track and road crossings construction. In addition, due to the proposed Perris Station, it would also be affected by construction noise from station and parking elements, which include earthwork, utility work and landscaping among others."... Importantly, the chosen so called "representative property which would be affected by typical track laying construction" is very far from the tracks, and so will not be nearly as much affected by the construction noise as homes in the UCR neighborhood much closer to the tracks. Indeed the house at 228C Street, between 2nd and 3rd Sts in Perris, is so far from the tracks that the noise level is the same with two freight trains in a day as it would be without any trains ( SEA Figure 1.7-12 (p. 77) and SEA Tech Report C Appendix F, p. 39). Noise measurements for 228 C. St are listed in SEA Tables 3.4-6, for 2005, and 3.4-7, for 2009, with listed distances from the tracks of 240 feet and 244 feet. As seen in the aerial photo in SEA Figure 1.7-12, the residence there is very close to the property line, with perhaps a 20 foot setback, so that the property line is at about 224 feet from the tracks. The DEIR2 at p. 4.10-38,39 (=322, 323) provides the following information about the construction noise at that property: "As a result, based on construction noise projections shown in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report C, the combined noise level for two of the noisiest pieces of construction equipment would result in a construction noise level of 79 dBA at the property line of the residential home. This would be below the FTA construction noise criteria described in Chapter 12 of the FTA Guidance Manual. It would also be below the 80 dB noise level set by Section 7.34.060 of the Perris General Plan. Therefore, although the total project construction period is estimated to last approximately 18 months, because the FTA construction noise criteria level for both day and night-time construction would not be surpassed, noise impacts due to construction noise activities are not expected and would be less than significant." (emphasis added) In arriving at this 79 dBA figure, the EIR is using the following formula (FEIR Tech Report C, Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Revised May 2011, p. 47,48): "Noise levels are predicted using the following equation for each construction piece Leq (equip) = E.L. + 10 Log(U.F) - 20 log(D/50) — 10Glog(D/50) (as given in the FTA Noise and Vibration Manual, here correcting typos. This correction was pointed out in the Johnson letter of Jan. 6, 2011) where, Leq (equipment = the Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of equipment E.L. = The noise emission level of a particular piece of equipment U.F. = The usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that a piece of equipment is in use over a specified time period D = distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment G = accounts for topography and ground effects (G = 0 over hard ground, per FTA Manual) Since G is taken to be 0, the term here that depends on distance from the receiver is —20 log(D/50). For D = 224 at 228 C St., Perris, - 20 log(D/50) = - 20 .log(224/50) = - 20 log(4.48) = - 20(0.651) = - 13.02 On the other hand, many of the residences in the UCR neighborhood (including those along E. Campus View Dr., where the railroad right of way is only 100 feet wide, as well as Nisbet Way residences and Citrus St. residences) have property lines only 50 feet (or even slightly less) from the tracks. For these residences, with D = 50, one has -20 log(D/50) = -20 log() = 0. This is a huge 13 dBA difference in applying the formula at the EIR's so-called "representative residential location" and such locations in the UCR neighborhood. Adding this 13 dBA to the 79 dBA at the Perris location, we get 92 dBA, well in excess of even the outrageously annoying cutoff levels of Leq dBA levels of 90 day and 80 night listed in the FTA chart at the FEIR Tech Report C p. 48. (Yes, the Perris property construction noise will involve station construction noise as well as track construction nosie, but the station will be on the east side of the newly constructed bypass track which itself is to the east of the existing freight track, and thus all even significantly farther from the 228 C property line, which according to the formula gives a lesser noise level at the property line.) Moreover, the EIR fails to consider the construction noise involved in the construction of the proposed sound walls near residences in the UCR neighborhood. While the property lines of many of these residences are already very close to the tracks (which is one reason why the sound walls are proposed), they are even closer to the propsed sound walls, which apparently in many case will be immediately adjacent to the property boundary (as stated in the EIR for the proposed landscape wall by Hyatt Elementary School). For such close distances, the term —20 log(D/50). For example, if the sound wall construction is 5 feet from the property line, this term is +20, thus indicating a major noise impact. The EIR fails to consider the noise impacts of sound wall construction. Moreover, in choosing a so-called "representative residential site" that is in Penis and then noting the 79 dBA is below an 80 dBA level in the Penis General Plan, the EIR ignores that the City of Riverside has a much more stringent restriction on noise, including construction noise. The FEIR Tech Report C, p. 46, Table 15: City of Riverside — Exterior Noise Standards, notes that for the residential land use category, the Noise Level standard for Night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) is 45 dBA and for Day (7 a.m to 10 p,m.) is 55 dBA, with certain limited exceedance allowed for extremely short periods.. Tech Report C then states, at p. 46, "Section 7.35.010 [of the Riverside Municipal Code] specifically addresses construction -related activities. Construction work that exceeds the allowable noise standards in Table 15 may not occur between the hours of 7 PM and 7 AM on weekdays, between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or federal holidays." This is grossly misleading. What Section 7.35.010 actually says pertaining to construction is "B. It is unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued any disturbing, excessive or offensive noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity. The following acts, among others, are declared to be disturbing, excessive and offensive noises in violation of this section: 5. Construction: Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading or demolition work between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on week days and between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or federal holidays such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line or at any time exceeds the maximum permitted noise level for the underlying land use category, except for emergency work or by variance. This section does not apply to the use of domestic power tools." (emphasis added) In other words, construction noise that is disturbing is prohibited not only at night, but during daytime as well. Exceeding the municipal noise standards even during the daytime, even if it were to be allowed with or without a variance, and even if it does not exceed the extremely high dBA levels in the FTA noise criteria listed in the FEIR Technical Report C (p. 48, Table 16), is the issue. The issue is not whether or not the FTA Construction Noise Criteria are violated (although there is substantial evidence that they will be, as shown above), but whether there will be a significant noise impact on residents by community standards as exemplified in the Municipal Code. Actually, the FTA Manual, at p. 207, regarding Qualitative Assessments for construction noise, states that (among other things) there should be "Commitments to limit noise levels to certain levels, including any local ordinances that apply" (emphasis added) as well as "monitoring of noise". It appears that there no such commitment and no such monitoring provided by the Project. Moreover, merely complying with daytime code requirements does not reduce the environmental impact, it merely eliminates legal liability as a nuisance. As noted above, the SEA states that "According to the PVL Construction Staging Plan, some nighttime construction is scheduled to occur specifically for new track layout." An excuse for nighttime construction, and more detail, is given at DEIR p. 2-49 (=85): "Construction The work would be performed in a manner that allows freight deliveries to continue while the PVL improvements are being undertaken. Freight delivery schedules would be adjusted to accommodate the work, balancing the need to support business activity of the freight shippers/receivers with the need to remove old track and install new track. Some construction work may be performed at night or on weekends and some train operations may shift to nights or weekends to accomplish the project schedule. In the event that nighttime and weekend work are determined necessary, coordination with the affected local jurisdictions would be undertaken." (emphasis added) This statement that "some train operations may shift to nights or weekends" raises yet another environmental impact that the SEA fails to analyze. And as regards to any temporary inconvenience to BNSF or freight shippers/receivers, rather than place the additional burden of nighttime construction noise on local residents, BNSF and freight shippers/receivers can live with interruptions, as they did for a couple of weeks after storm damage from the recent storm event of Dec. 20, 2010 interrupted regular freight traffic on the SJBL. And regarding "coordination with the affected local jurisdictions" whether the noise is by day or by night, merely complying with code requirements does not reduce the environmental impact, it merely eliminates legal liability as a nuisance. Similarly, the use of a variance or other such waiver does not diminish the environmental impact, just the legal liability for nuisance. Noise from passenger trains The FEIR's Appendix C: Noise and Vibration Technical Report, at p. 40 states "Wheel Squeal In addition to noise from train horns, locomotives and crossing bells, wheel squeal on tight radius curves (<10 times the SCRRA/Metrolink locomotive wheel base or 900 feet) can contribute to community noise levels. Table 4 lists all short radius curves along the PVL alignment. As wheel squeal noise can be significant, wayside applicators will be installed as part of project implementation in all areas of the corridor with short radius 4 curves. Wayside applicators apply a friction control material to the top of the rail and the gage face to reduce the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal. According to the Transit Cooperative Research Program — "Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual" (Transportation Research Board, 1997), a report which was sponsored by the FTA, the use of a petroleum lubricant would reduce squeal while the use of a water lubricant would eliminate squeal." This is a gross misrepresentation of what the Manual actually says. The "Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual" that the SEA cites can be downloaded from the following link: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp rpt 23.pdf The entire section of the Manual (at its p. 164) is included in the Raymond Johnson Jan. 6, 2011 letter commenting on the SEA. (We incorporate that letter here by reference.) There is no support in the Manual for the EIR's claim about eliminating squeal.. Appendix C at p.19 lists sources of train noise relevant to residences in the UCR neighborhood, with the reference SEL (Sound Equivalent Level) noise level in dBA for each such source: horn noise, approximately 99dBA; locomotive engine noise, 92dBA; railcar noise, 82dBA; grade crossing bell noise, 109dbA; and wheel/rail noise, i.e., wheel squeal noise on tight radius curves (of which there are many in the UCR neighborhood, as shown Table 4 (p. 24), 136dBA. Thus wheel squeal noise should be a very important component of any Project Noise Impact Assessment for residences near a tight radius curve. However, the wheel squeal noise at sensitive locations is not being estimated or included in the Noise Impact Assessment except for that at the Citrus Connection. Indeed, in its section labeled "Estimate future noise levels at the representative receivers", Appendix C, pp. 35-36 states. "Noise from wheel squeal (near the tight radius curve at the proposed "Citrus Connection") was assessed separately since the implementation of the PVL project will include wayside applicators as part of the design plans, which will significantly reduce noise from wheel squeal for all tight radius curves." although the EIR fails to quantify the level to which the wheel squeal will allegedly be reduced (except for the suspect figure at the Citrus Connection). Thus the EIR's Noise Impact Assessment is invalid for all sensitive receptors near tight radius curves. Landslides and drainage facilities The Project as described in the EIR involves drainage improvements including replacement or extension of numerous culverts (FEIR2 p. 2-43 (=79)). SEA p. 3.9-13 states "Storm Water Drainage Within the PVL corridor, there are 53 culverts of which 30 would be replaced or reconstructed as part of the project." The heavy rain in the latter half of December, 2010, resulted in large mudflows onto the tracks where the tracks are adjacent to Islander Park (roughly about 1,100 plus feet north of the end of Big Springs Rd, at roughly MP 3.7), leaving the tracks impassible for an extended period of time. During the week of Dec. 20 and again the following week, local residents observed a tractor busy removing mud from the tracks and dumping it over the embankment on the Islander Park side of the embankment that separates Islander Park from Box Springs Reserve. Regular freight service only restarted about two weeks after the storm; part of that delay may have involved storm damage elsewhere on the SJBL, the remedy for which also needs to be described and analyzed as part of the present Project. The mudflows on the tracks adjacent to Islander Park came from uphill adjacent private and County park property to the east of the tracks where portions of the mountain slope gave way. Since the soil crust there is now weakened, future mudflows can be expected after even much lesser rains. The railroad right of way in this segment is only 100 feet wide, so there is limited space to provide measures protecting against future mudflows. Moreover, providing adequate drainage there would not be simple. More than a culvert is needed because of the fact that on the west edge (i.e., the side away from the mountain slope) of the narrow railroad right of way at this location is a bluff (in Islander Park) towering over the railroad right of way. Some substantial work needs to be done to remedy this situation to attempt to make the tracks suitable for Metrolink use. The public needs to be informed about what is proposed to be done and its environmental impacts. This needs to be examined as part of the environmental review process, and then the documents need to recirculated. If consideration of planning for the necessary drainage improvement is postponed until after the present SEA consideration, that would constitute improper segmentation and deferral of the environmental review process. The necessary drainage improvements at this sensitive site (adjacent to public parks) needs to be described and considered as part of the Project. In response to a Dec. 30, 2010 email query concerning the mudflow situation and whether corrective measures would be included in Project environmental review, Ms Echeverria of RCTC has responded by email on Jan. 5, 2011, stating 'the Penis Valley Line, is currently under environmental review. The environmental documents do include discussion of hydrology and drainage matters and as part of the project, there is a plan to rehabilitate and clean out existing culverts in the area of Islander Park. Also, per Metrolink standards, track drainage ditches (swales) will be constructed on both sides of the track in that area. The culvert work and drainage ditches will apply to the entire corridor." With regard to these comments by Ms Echeverria, there is no existing culvert at or near the mudflow discussed above. While the FEIR makes some sporadic general mention of drainage , aside from discussions of culvert work, as at DEIR p. 2-43 (where it mentions an evaluation of culverts in an "Existing Conditions Report", 2008 — but the changed situation in the aftermath of the recent mudflow was not an "existing condition" then), it fails to discuss the kind of substantial drainage channel that would be necessary to handle anything like the recent mudflow. And the mention of drainage brings to mind the biological issue of spadefoot toads, which breed in seasonal ponds that would be affected by such drainage. Timing On p. 2 of the Agenda report for this Item 10, it states "The EIR process was initiated on July 14, 2009, when the notice of preparation was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and made publicly available as required by CEQA." That means that the baseline for the EIR should be 2009, not the base year 2008 that the EIR is using as a baseline for a "supplemental analysis ... primarily for informational purposes"(FEIR1, p. p. 0.2-4 (=9). As for the use of a baseline of 2012 (FEIR1 p. 0.2-4 (=9)), and the claim of 2012 as the "opening year", since the necessary Federal approvals cannot occur before late summer of 2011 and since the EIR is stating an approximate Project construction time of 18 months (FEIR2 p. 4.10-37 (=320)), the opening date would not occur until at least some time in 2013, not 2012. Thus the EIR is using the wrong baseline(s). Moreover, while RCTC was required by CEQA to send written responses to comments made by public agencies such as the Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) at least 10 days before the July 13 date of this Agenda Item, the written responses they sent to RUSD (actually through RUSD's attorneys) included extensive references such as "See Master Comment # ..." but, as I have been informed by RUSD Assistant Superintendent Kirk Lewis, RCTC failed to actually include a copy of said Master Comments, apparently in violation of CEQA. Thank you for your consideration Richard Block 424 Two Trees Rd, Riverside, CA 92507 951-683-8762 rblock31@charter.net To: Riverside County Transportation Commission July 12, 2011 by email Re: Comments on Perris Valley Line Environmental Impact Report for the Perris Valley Line, Riverside County, California, Agenda Item 10 for the July 13, 2011 RCTC meeting. Please consider the comments herein on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Perris Valley Line Metrolink (PVL). This letter is being written on behalf of residents of the UCR neighborhood, including myself, and on behalf of Friends of Riverside's Hills. I request that this letter be part of the public record. The UCR neighborhood is the residential neighborhood extending north and east of the University of California Riverside campus, between the campus and the Box Springs Mountains. The route of the PVL, along the San Jacinto Branch Line railroad right of way (SJBL), goes through the UCR neighborhood from about MP 1.7 (north of Spruce St.) to about MP 5.1 (north of Gernert Rd), including passing close by hundreds of residences plus two public elementary schools, child care centers, churches, and parks. Friends of Riverside's Hills is a California non-profit corporation concerned with protecting the environment in the western Riverside County area. The EIR is seriously deficient. As discussed below, there are a number of potentially significant impacts that the EIR fails to consider or fails to analyze adequately, including impacts for which consideration is segmented, deferred, and/or evaded entirely. These deficiencies need to be corrected and the EIR recirculated. In what follows, FEIR1 indicates vol. 1 of the FEIR, FEIR2 indicates vol. 2 of the FEIR which is the revised July 2011 version of the DEIR, and SEA indicates the Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the PVL. When referring to page numbers in documents, for the convenience of the reader an attempt has been made to also include the page number in the PDF version of the document. 1. Ambiguous description of track improvements and depth of construction In the DEIR Project Details Section 2.4.1 Track Improvements, p. 2-14 (=50), it says "MP 1.40 to MP 5.10 (approximately Marlborough Avenue south to Poarch Road): The track would be upgraded with new concrete ties, new welded rail, and new ballast as required. MP 5.10 to MP 7.00 (approximately Poarch Road to Box Springs Boulevard): Wooden ties would be replaced as needed and new ballast added." (emphasis added) The modifier "as required" means that the extent of the work remains to be determined. Note the contrast with the MP 5.10 to 7.00 section, where "and new ballast added" is not so modified. The SEA at p. 1-49 states "Project implementation will improve operating conditions by either upgrading (replace ballast, ties, and rail) or replacing existing track throughout its length, including along adjoining Hyatt Elementary School. The one exception is the two mile stretch between Poarch Road and River Crest Road where the track will be rehabilitated (resurfacing and spot tie replacements)." (emphasis added) The "either"/"or" statement (specifically mentioning an area adjoining Hyatt Elementary School, i.e., in the UCR neighborhood, and not clarified in the subsequent FEIR) is another indication of inadequacy of the description of the extent of the work to be done. The FEIR2 4.4-11 (=179) states (about an area in the UCR neighborhood): "After MP 3.50 the ROW enters Box Springs Mountain Reserve . . . Additionally, there would be limited work on the tracks in this area, but there would be noise barriers installed to shield adjacent residents from the train noise. ..." (emphasis added) The words "limited work on the tracks" would be a strange way of describing complete replacement of rail, ties, and ballast, so this statement contributes to the ambiguity of the EIR as to the extent of the track work planned. Not only the location and extent of track improvements needs to be more precisely described, but the depth of the construction at those locations needs to be described, since that depth impacts the environment, including hazards near the buried jet fuel pipeline. The SEA at p. 3.18-3t states "Portions of the existing SJBL ROW could contain buried Pleistocene alluvium beneath areas that have been previously disturbed by the original construction of the railroad. Proposed construction activities within the ROW (for example, double -tracking or track and tie replacement) in areas where the depth of previous disturbance is less than the maximum depth of construction may result in impacts to sensitive paleontological resources." This statement shows that some of the track improvements, including track and tie replacement, are expected to involve depth of construction exceeding the depth of previous disturbance. The EIR fails to describe the depths and locations involved, or the associated impacts, or to otherwise consider the issue. These matters are environmentally significant. The amount of track improvement and depth of excavation affect nearby sensitive receptors. Track and ties wear and eventually need to be repaired (e.g. by grinding of track) or replaced, and ballast settles. Construction noise impacts and the time period until necessary repair or replacement can be significant to nearby residences, schools and churches. The FEIR2, at page 4.10.43 (= 326) incorrectly describes the locations ("just south of Spruce Steet and north of Hyatt Elementary School") where one of two mitigation measures (ballast mats or under -tie pads) will be used; presumably it should be Highland, not Hyatt. 2. Inadequate description of location & depth of Jet Fuel Pipeline near construction The issue of depth of excavation for track and tie replacement is particularly important where such excavation will take place in the vicinity of the Kinder Morgan jet fuel pipeline. The DEIR claimed that the pipeline was a minimum of 3 feet deep. Now, in response to the RUSD letter pointing out that the depth near Highland School is 2 feet 4 inches, the response L3-13 (in the FEIR) states "The depth of the pipeline within the ROW varies. In some places it is as deep as 10 feet and in other places it is as shallow as 2 feet 4 inches. The reason for this range of depths is that erosion and weathering slowly remove topsoil and therefore reduce the overall depth of the line. Therefore, the description of the pipeline is not inconsistent or inaccurate." This and other statements in the FEIR shows that the FEIR continues to rely on incorrect and conclusory statements, and is clueless as to the actual depth of the pipeline as well as to its precise location except perhaps in the vicinity of Highland Elementary School. The Raymond Johnson public comment letter on the SEA (Jan. 6, 2011 — that letter is incorporated herein by reference, and referred to herein as the Johnson2 letter) included a copy of a letter by UCR neighborhood resident Merial Everett regarding the 2002 incident involving the pipeline in her backyard, showing that Kinder Morgan was ignorant of at least some of the actual locations and depths of the pipeline; furthermore the Johnson2 letter included pictures of the pipeline where it was actually exposed because of past erosion — so much for it being only "as shallow as 2 feet 4 inches" It should be noted that the (2010) DEIR claimed that it was a minimum of 3 feet deep; then the RUSD letter pointed out that it was only 2 feet 4 inches deep near Highland School, and now the EIR is claiming that it is a minimum of 2 feet 4 inches deep. It seems evident that Kinder Morgan doesn't know the precise pipeline locations and depth (or won't admit it), and the EIR doesn't properly verify them. Moreover, as the Johnson2 letter pointed out, because of the pipeline's location east of the tracks near Highland School and west of the tracks in Mrs. Everett's yard, there have to be at least two places where the pipeline actually crosses under the tracks, and thus where both construction work and metrolink train vibration will be especially dangerous. The Project description not only remains deficient in not accurately describing the location and depths of the pipeline in the vicinity of the tracks, but especially important is its failure to specify all locations where the pipeline crosses under the tracks and the depths of the pipeline at those locations, as well as its failure to describe the special mitigation measures to be taken as such locations to protect against pipeline weakening and/or rupture not only during construction but also during train operation (related to vibration). In its response L3-14: the FEIR claims that "no engineering or construction activities are expected to impact the pipeline during construction. . . . The Contractor must expose all Kinder Morgan pipelines prior to crossing to determine the exact alignment and depth of the lines." (Here "crossing" presumably means crossing by equipment, and not to the undisclosed locations where the pipeline crosses under the tracks.) Since (as shown by the Johnson2 letter and other comments) RCTC clearly does not know "the exact alignment and depth of the lines", the claim that "no engineering or construction activities are expected to impact the pipeline during construction" is merely a conclusory statement. Indeed, it would appear to be impossible to do track construction work at a location where the track crosses over the pipeline without "impact"ing the pipeline. It should be noted that the FEIR's newly added Appendix H, the Zeta Tech Report (dated March 22, 2011) addresses the pipelined depth and condition, but only in the immediate vicinity of Highland Elementary School, where the "pipeline is located between 25 and 75 feet from the track" (Zeta Tech Report, p. 5). The Report contains no discussion concerning the pipeline in other areas, in particular regarding locations where it crosses under the tracks. Thus the project description is inadequate. It should, but does not, give actual and true information on the exact alignment and depth of the lines not just adjacent to Highland Elementary School but especially with regard to where the tracks cross the pipeline. The impacts, especially at such crossing locations, from construction on the tracks and from vibration from passing speedy Metrolink trains, are potentially significant and need to be properly analyzed. 3. Staging The EIR, while listing several required criteria for its required construction staging area, fails to discuss any feasible location, much less the environmental impacts there. Here are criteria that the EIR states to be required. Its project description states, at FEIR2 p. 2-49, 2-50 (85,86), "The next step would be the staging of construction materials and equipment. Where needed, the contractor would perform rough grading for embankment changes and construction equipment access. . . . It should also be noted that any equipment staging areas will be within disturbed areas of the ROW or RCTC property, and not within 500 feet of environmentally sensitive areas." (emphasis added) The EIR fails to specify what constitute "environmentally sensitive areas" for this purpose. The FEIR2 adds at p. 4.3-27 (164) (along with other relevant criteria) "BMP AQ-8: Establish an on -site construction equipment staging area and construction worker parking lots, located on either paved surfaces or unpaved surfaces subject to soil stabilization." (emphasis added) at 4.4-26 (194) (along with other relevant criteria) "BR -3: Stockpiling of materials shall be limited to disturbed areas without native vegetation, areas to be impacted by project development or in non -sensitive habitats." and at 4.10-38 (321) "Also, staging yards would be located strategically so as to limit the travel time for construction crews. These processes would serve to limit the exposure radius of traffic -related construction noise in sensitive areas:" (emphasis added) Other requirements are at FEIR2 ES -5 (19). It should be noted that other aspects that a staging area would presumably involve, some of them apparently not mentioned in the EIR, include the following: security fencing and lighting; construction trailers and restrooms; storage and use of construction materials, equipment, vehicles, supplies, water and fuel; contractor show -up and parking; and equipment and vehicle maintenance. Even though all the above quoted requirements and the geography of construction location, at least in the UCR neighborhood, place severe constraints on the location of staging areas, the EIR fails to specify the proposed location of the staging areas, construction worker parking lots, and stockpiling areas, or even a list of feasible locations. That the constraints on such locations in the UCR area are severe is evidenced by the following: The only public street access to the ROW in the UCR area is at the following streets:: Spruce. Blaine, Mt. Vernon, the narrow end of Big Springs Rd, the end of Manfield, and Gernert/Poarch. These access points are widely separated, and most of them traverse quiet residential neighborhoods. Much of the area between these access points is environmentally sensitive (adjacent to Box Springs Reserve, Islander Park (a nature park), MSHCP critical cells or core areas), or immediately adjacent to residences, schools or churches. The actual ROW for much of its length in the UCR neighborhood is narrow (e.g., only 100 feet wide between Mt. Vernon and Big Springs Rd), and sometimes partly consisting of steep slopes. (For a partial description of condition of the ROW in the UCR neighborhood, see FEIR2 p. 4.4-11 (=179).) It is not clear that there are any suitable areas for staging on the ROW or RCTC owned property in the UCR neighborhood And the ROW is the only RCTC-owned property in the UCR area. Thus the staging areas, construction worker parking lots, and stockpiling areas may need to be a considerable distance away, increasing construction equipment travel and construction crew travel through the quiet residential neighborhood, with associated and unanalyzed environmental impacts. Also relevant as showing what a huge additional burden the proposed PVL construction would be on the UCR neighborhood are the issues mentioned in Mitigation Measure HHM-3 (FEIR1 p. 0.4-10 (= 755): "HHM-3: Prior to construction RCTC shall prepare a traffic management plan. . .. to determine detour routes, length and timing of any closures, temporary access routes, signage, coordination with police and fire departments regarding changes in emergency access routes. An additional component of the plan shall be coordinating with local emergency response agencies to identify emergency evacuation routes in the event of a wildland fire near PVL facilities. .. ." The EIR fails to discuss or analyze the impact of these issues — detour routes, closures, etc. — in the UCR neighborhood, where many residences already have very limited access, such as no -outlet streets. Thus the EIR's project description is deficient in failing to identify suitable staging areas and the impact, including from construction related traffic, of specific choices of those areas. 4. Foreseeable Expansion of Station Amenities The failure to consider now the environmental impact of future improvements that RCTC plans along the PVL constitutes improper deferral, segmentation and/or evasion of consideration of the environmental impacts. Here is evidence of RCTC's planning for future station improvements in the RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual (as approved by RCTC July 8, 2009, Agenda Item 8E) ("RCTC DCManual")1 As stated on p. 1 of the Manual, "The design and construction of the Stations along the PVL will be funded with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts grant monies. These monies are tied to a Cost Effective Index (CEI) Criteria which if exceeded will result in the reduction or loss of the funding. Therefore, RCTC is limited by this funding as to what can be constructed on opening day of PVL Commuter Rail Service. This Design Criteria Manual will outline the basic Station that can be designed and constructed for PVL on opening day, while remaining within the limits established by the FTA funding. RCTC recognizes that these basic design criteria may not address the various Cities, Agencies, and local organizations expectations for a Commuter Rail Station, including the architectural look, aesthetic features, and amenities. RCTC will work with these groups, the State, and Federal Governments to identify and procure other funding sources to design and construct additional Architectural and Aesthetics Features and expand the Station Amenities after the opening day of the Station and outside of the FTA funding. The current budget estimates the total station costs including parking to average approximately $6 million, this compares to most recent North Main Corona Station construction costs of $10 million in 2002." (emphasis added) Thus RCTC plans improvements to the four stations included in the present PVL version subsequent to the PVL opening day. By statute, "modernization of existing stations and parking facilities" for passenger rail is exempt from CEQA. However, new stations and parking facilities are not exempt. For the proposed PVL stations, what is considered in the SEA is a basic or stripped down version of the facilities in order to maximize FTA Small Starts grant money. However the above quote from the RCTC Manual shows that RCTC plans to improve the facilities later, indeed to "expand the Station Amenities after the opening day of the Station and outside of the FTA funding", thus doing it when it can be done without Federal funding and so exempt from NEPA as well as CEQA, thus evading consideration of the full environmental impact of the planned facilities. Note that the subsequent "expanded amenities" to the facilities are not only reasonably foreseeable but would be substantial, as shown by the difference between the $6 million cost for facilities as proposed in the SEA and the $10 million cost in 2002 for the North Main Corona Station. Indeed the $10 million in 2002 dollars likely translates to $12 million in 2012 dollars, so the expanded version will cost about twice as much as the stripped down version and so can be expected to have substantially more environmental impact which needs to analyzed as part of the Project. The potential environmental impact of such future improvements is accentuated by the fact that, as the RCTC DCManual states at pp. 30,31: "The Preliminary Engineering for the PVL Project determined that the proposed South Perris Station is located in a 100 year flood plain. During a 100 year storm event it was determined that the station would be under 6 feet of water." Additional evidence that future station improvements are reasonably foreseeable: on p. 21 of the RCTC DCManual, it states "The base station design must include the construction of SCRRA's required 680 -foot long platform and must be designed to accommodate the future expansion of the platform to 850 -feet with minimal impact to items constructed as part of the base design." (emphasis added) 1 It should be noted that, as stated in the SEA at p. 3.13-2 (=372), "The RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual was developed to establish the design guidelines to be used for future facilities. This manual provides guidelines for developing commuter rail stations, park and ride facilities, and multimodal transit centers developed by RCTC." 5. Foreseeable Construction of Maintenance Road The EIR fails to consider the reasonably foreseeable construction of a maintenance road for the PVL, in violation of CEQA. Here is evidence that such construction is reasonably foreseeable. The RCTC DCManual, at p. 15, states "All requirements outline (sic) in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual2 section 7.5.3 shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. Along the PVL all attempts should be made to provide a maintenance road along the track alignment with access points from adjacent City, County Streets, or RCTC owned property." (emphasis added) The SCRRA Design Criteria Manual, at p. 59, states: "8.11.2 SCRRA Maintenance Vehicle Access Maintenance vehicle access, particularly to turnouts, signals, and curve lubricators3, shall be provided. These typically create berms or "ditch blocks" across drainages. The designer shall provide culverts or storm sewers, including the use of drop inlets and manholes, as necessary to provide continuous drainage on SCRRA ROW." (emphasis and footnote added) The FEIR2 p. 2-51 (=87):states "RCTC anticipates that project maintenance will be according to SCRRA/Metrolink standard practices." The appropriate time to construct such a maintenance road would be during construction of new or replacement track so that it could be used then, in particular for the use of some of the equipment that is planned to be used during track improvement. Thus Response L3-6, citing the Air Quality Technical Report, notes that "For example, for the track construction, the analysis assumed that 1,000 feet of track would be laid per day, with an estimated number of 131 total days. One end loader, backhoe, track laying machine (TLM), track tamper, and ballast regulator would each be used for eight hours a day. One railroad car would be used for six hours a day and one dynamic track stabilizer would be used for four hours a day. Lastly, one water truck, one dump truck, and one welder's truck would be used for nine hours a day." Construction of such a maintenance road is made more necessary by the facts (as noted above in the comments on staging) that, at least in the UCR neighborhood portion of the ROW, access points from public streets are very limited and much of the ROW is narrow and either on a raised embankment or constricted by steep slopes. The Construction, operation, and maintenance of the required 20 plus miles of such a maintenance road, including possible grading and even blasting of existing hard granite rock slopes close to the tracks near some of the tight curves in the UCR neighborhood, would have significant environmental impacts. The DEIR, at p. 2-44, does say that, during construction, "Where needed, the contractor would perform rough grading for embankment changes and construction equipment access " Here, the phrase "where needed" is vague and unspecific. It fails to adequately describe the locations or extent of such "rough grading" and its environmental impacts (note that much of it would be near environmentally sensitive areas and residences, schools or churches). Nor does such "rough grading" address the SCRRA Design Criteria Manual's requirement, quoted above, to provide proper drainage. The EIR fails to mention the required actual maintenance road, much less analyze the associated impacts. This is an additional inadequacy in the project description. If portions of DC Manual's required maintenance road are only to be constructed after the PVL opening day, then that would constitute improper segmentation/deferral of the environmental review. Thank you for your consideration and inclusion in the public record. Kevin Dawson 269 Goins Ct., Riverside CA 92507 951-781-0386 h kevindaw(a�aol.com 2 As stated in the SEA, p. 3.13-2 (=372), "The SCRRA Design Criteria Manual serves to define the procedures that govern the initiation, progress and execution of design work for the SCRRA." 3 Note that the PVL does plan to use curve lubricators in connection with its many tight -radius curves. 12th July, 2011 To: Riverside County Transportation Commission Re: Comments on Perris Valley Line Environmental Impact Report for the Perris Valley Line, Riverside County, California, Agenda Item 10 (13th July 2011 meeting). Fr: Friends of Riverside's Hills We would like to take this opportunity of further commenting on the proposed development of the Perris Valey Line. In response to our last letter of 6 Jan 2011 (and our earlier letter of 24 May 2010), we would like to respond and add some additional concerns. Despite my statements in that prior letter that I had been observing the spadefoot toad populations for several years in the UCR neighborhood area, the response was that there were no reported occurrences within the MSHCP area between 2005 and 2008; however, this is not true since in February 2008 I (and not Friends of Riverside's Hills as stated in the response) reported to the RCA the following information on breeding sites: All locations UTM 11S 047xxxx 375xxxx tio��s o 0R s. :006 8360 This map shows the GPS locations of 6 vernal pools alongside the railway tracks (plus two others that are set back from the tracks) in the UCR neighborhood. Of these 6 pools, 5 regularly contain spadefoot toad tadpoles, 2 of which produce metamorphs almost every year. It was sent to Karin Cleary -Rose (at that time heading the MSHCP monitoring) at the USFWS and her response was: "The information you gave us last time is enough for us to enter the record into our database." (28 Feb 2008) A photo of the area of the two most important pools (taken 16 March 2010) is shown below. The pool at map location 0471305/3758369 is shown in the foreground. The second, more productive pool, is in the area hidden by the curve of the track. The second picture shows a metamorph spadefoot toad at that second pool taken on 14 April 2010. I have photographic records of the tadpoles in these pools from 2004-2011. I should add that my expertise as a Professor of Biology at the University of California Riverside was noted in the previous letter. It can be seen how close these breeding sites are to the tracks, and the fact that track replacement is apparently expected, and yet the Supplementary Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) take no account of the possible serious damage to these breeding areas that staging or other impacts to this area would cause — not just in the breeding season but at other times as well (see previous letter). Other covered species may also be impacted. SEA 3.14-21 notes that there is available habitat for burrowing owl as well as California coastal gnatcatcher where the ROW expands between MP 4.0 and MP 5.0 near Poarch Road. These impacts have been dismissed without consideration of changes due to the increased traffic (especially noise) and location of staging areas. Wildfires caused by sparks from trains Over the years there have been numerous wildland fires on or near the Box Springs Mountain that have started in the vicinity of the SJBL. While the cause of any particular one of these fires is generally unknown, it is generally considered likely that many of them have been caused by sparks from passing freight trains. In places the superelevation of the tracks at tight curves in the UCR neighborhood is less than that normally called for to balance the forces of a train going around such a curve (which also is dependent on train speed). That means that there is extra friction as the train wheels press against the rail curve, which can produce sparks. The FEIR Appendix C Noise and Vibration Technical Report at p. 23 says "wayside applicators will be installed as part of project implementation in all areas of the corridor with short radius curves. Wayside applicators apply a friction control material to the top of the rail and the gage face to reduce the metal to metal friction that causes wheel squeal." (emphasis added) As noted elsewhere in the record, there are a lot of very short radius (i.e., very tight) curves on the SJBL in the vicinity of the Box Springs Mountains. Metal to metal friction, i.e. wheel against rail, even "reduced", can still produce sparks which can lead to a wildfire. The faster speed and larger number of passenger trains, as compared to the freight trains, means increased likelihood of such sparks, and thus a higher likelihood of train -caused wildfires. The EIR notes the hazard of wildland fires in the world generally and in the vicinity of the PVL, but fails to note any relationship to the passage of trains, or that such passages can cause such fires. Thus SEA at p. 3.8-6, in an expanded version of material on DEIR p. 4.7-2, states "Wildland Fires Wildland fires pose a hazard to the public and environment adjacent to or intermixed with urban areas. A wildfire is any uncontrolled, non -structure fire that occurs in the wilderness, wildland, or bush. Wildfires are common in various parts of the world, occurring in cycles. They are often considered beneficial to the wilderness, as many plant species are dependent on the effects of fire for growth and reproduction. Wildfires differ from other fires only by their extensive size, the speed at which it spreads out from its original source, its ability to change direction unexpectedly, and to jump gaps, such as roads, rivers and fire breaks. According to the National Fire and Aviation Executive Board's "Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of the Federal Wildland Fire Policy", wildfires generally do not involve properties; however, with extensive urbanization of wilderness, they can cause extensive destruction of homes and other property located in the wildland-urban interface, a zone of transition between developed areas and undeveloped wilderness. " In particular there are numerous homes in the vicinity of the PVL where it passes Box Springs Mountain that are at risk from a wildland fire in the area, and such fires in this area have occurred frequently in the past (including one so far this year, fortunately controlled before it had burned very many acres). A related and very important issue that is completely ignored by the SEA is that in this increasingly urbanized area wildfires are no longer considered beneficial. Much of the area adjacent to and uphill from the PVL in the UCR neighborhood area forms part of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSHCP), specifically the Box Springs Mountains (Non -Contiguous Habitat Block A of the MSHCP) and the linkage (Proposed Constrained Linkage 7) between Sycamore Canyon Park (Core Area D) and the Box Springs which actually crosses the tracks. Evidence that increased wildfire is NOT beneficial to the surrounding native habitat (Riversidean sage scrub, generally referred to as coastal sage scrub) is provided in the MSHCP documentation: "Published literature documents conversion of frequently burned chaparral and coastal sage scrub to grassland (Keely 1990, Zedler et al. 1983)" MSHCP vol1 sec 5 p5-4, to which it should be added that the grassland in referred to is non-native grassland. FEIR2 p. 4.7-2 (=p233) states "The Western Riverside County Natural Hazard Disclosure Map (Fire Map) provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) was reviewed to determine the susceptibility of the PVL corridor to forest fire risks and hazards (CDFFP, 2000). According to the Fire Map, a section of the PVL corridor, east of Mt. Vernon Avenue to the I-215/SR-60 Interchange (near Box Springs Mountain) is shown to be in a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards. Pursuant to Section 4125 of the PRC and requirements of maintenance listed in Section 4291 of the same code, the owner of the property is the responsible party for maintaining fire protection services unless CDFFP has entered into a cooperative agreement with a local agency for this area pursuant to Section 4142 of the PRC. This area of Box Springs Mountain has been incorporated into a Wildfire Management Plan, and is under State of California responsibility for fire protection. The remainder of the PVL corridor and adjacent properties are located in developed areas not shown within substantial fire risks or hazards. The FEIR2 at p. 4.7-17 (=p248) asks and answers as follows: "Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands A section of the PVL corridor, east of Mt. Vernon Avenue to the 1-215/SR-60 Interchange is shown to be in a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards. This area of Box Springs Mountain Reserve has been incorporated into a Wildfire Management Plan, and is under State of California responsibility for fire protection. Evacuation plans caused to be put into effect by a wildland fire may be affected during construction activities because the proposed project will be temporarily closing streets or grade crossings will be temporarily closed or re-routed in this area. Routine operation and maintenance of the PVL corridor would not interfere with daily operations at the grade crossings and streets associated with these crossings. There would be no impact with mitigation in place (Mitigation measure HHM-4)." (HHM-4 merely says to see HHM-3 — DEIR2 p. 0.4-10 (= p755), which states in relevant part that there will be an plan "to identify emergency evacuation routes in the event of a wildland fire near PVL facilities" ) Thus, while the EIR (and SEA) mentions the hazard of wildfires, it fails to consider causes of wildfires, and in particular fails to consider the passage of Metrolink trains as a potential cause of wildfires. Its discussion notes only that owners of property put at additional hazard from wildland fires caused by PVL trains (e.g., from sparks) are responsible for maintaining fire protection services. That's like blaming the victim. No state law exempts from responsibility the person or entity causing a wildfire. The SEA fails to analyze the actual hazards from PVL train operation, construction or maintenance in the nearby areas at high wildland fire risk, nor does it consider any possible mitigation for such hazards. (HHM-4 concerns effects of PVL construction on existing emergency response and evacuation routes, and does not address reduction in causes of wildfires or minimizing damage from them. Nor do any of the other of the EIR's proposed mitigation measures.) Conflict with MSHCP: Poarch Road Fencing The main issue here is that the EIR fails to consider the conflict between the Project's planned fencing (at least 400 feet on each side of the planned locked gate at the Poarch Rd grade crossing) on the one hand, and the MSHCP's Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 (defined above), centered at the Poarch Rd crossing, on the other hand. The FEIR Appendix C, Grade Crossing Enhancements, p. 2, states "Poarch Rd grade crossing: Provide locked entry gates for emergency vehicles only. Fencing along RR ROW for 400'+ both sides of current crossing." Appendix E of the FEIR is a Revised Habitat Assessment Report. Its Table 2.2-1 at p. 2-3 (=18) is labelled MSHCP Conservation Criteria for PVL Project Applicable Criteria Cells. It lists three Conservation Cells (# 545, 635, and 721) in this area and says conservation within them "will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 7". The next page of Appendix E states "Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 [is] within the study area crossing the 1-215 and SJBL line at Poarch Road "Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 is comprised of upland Habitat in the vicinity of Central Avenue. It is the only connection from Sycamore Canyon Park to Box Springs Reserve. This Linkage is important for species dispersal and would reduce the likelihood of species extinction as a result of population isolation." Appendix C's Table 2.3-1 "PVL Project Applicable MSHCP Cores and Linkages" at p. 2-6 (=21) says "Proposed Constrained Linkage 7 . . . Crosses SJBL Line and 1-215 at Poarch Road". It should be noted that Sycamore Canyon Park and Box Springs Reserve are respectively southerly and northerly of the Project's planned fencing. Thus the planned fencing would be a new barrier over 800 feet long directly across the Proposed Constrained Linkage 7, further cutting off the already constrained wildlife link between Sycamore Canyon Park and Box Springs Reserve, a potentially significant environmental impact. This potential impact on wildlife movement would still be there even if there were no MSHCP. The EIR fails to consider this impact. As noted in Appendix C and elsewhere in the EIR, the habitat near the proposed fencing is largely coast sage scrub. Such habitat is highly subject to wildland fires. The EIR also fails to consider the impact of the fencing on fire control efforts, including access across the tracks, in the area. Citrus Connection and Open Space Lot The concern here is the location of the southeast edge of the proposed Citrus Connection, where it joins the SJBL, and its impact on the Open Space Lot at that location that was a Mitigation Measure required by the City of Riverside at the time of its approval of the adjacent Citrus Business Park development. The Open Space Lot being discussed has APN# 247-150-038 and can be seen on DEIR2 Fig. 2.4-20 (p. 73) "Citrus Connection Parcel Acquisition" as the lot just below (and to the right of) the RCTC-owned Lot marked 247-150-040 (the Valley Street marking shown there through the middle of the lot with APN# 247-150-038 is out of date — Valley Street is non- existent there and is in the middle of Springbrook Wash). The EIR contains two figures showing a fairly detailed picture of the route of the Citrus Connection: DEIR2 Figure 2.4.4 (p. 53) is a "Site Aerial" of the Citrus Connection, and Figure 2.4-5 (p. 54) is a "Citrus Connection Engineering Site Plan". Those two figures appear to show that the new rail line of the Citrus Connection goes through a bit of the northeast corner of the open space lot. Even if a more detailed figure would show that the rail line would not actually pass through a part of the Open Space Lot, it appears from the cited Figures that it would at least come so close that a track embankment there (needed because the site is along the side of Springbrook Wash, one of the City's major protected arroyos) and room for maintenance access would intrude into the Open Space Lot. Friends of Riverside's Hills worked with the developers of the Citrus Business Park to minimize that project's environmental impact, working with them to see that the Springbrook Wash portion was preserved in an open space lot and in particular persuading them to place the access road to the northern lots at the west end of the development (next to the main railroad line) instead of the east end (next to the SJBL) because the east end in and near the Wash had the best native vegetation. We are informed that the Open Space Lot is now under the stewardship of the Riverside Land Conservancy under an easement, to be kept in a natural state. The EIR is deficient in ignoring the existence of the Open Space Lot and the impact of the Citrus Connection passing either through or immediately adjacent to the Open Space Lot, with no consideration of any buffering. Thank you for your attention. Regards, Len Nunney For Friends of Riverside's Hills, 4477 Picacho Dr. Riverside, Ca 92507. PS Since I have not exceeded by 6 page limit here are two photos from 30th March 2005 of the major pool identified on the map included above, one of the pool showing the rail line in the upper left and the other showing two metamorph spadefoot toads in the same pool. • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 13, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Chair Greg Pettis and Commissioners Daryl Busch and Ron Roberts SUBJECT: American Public Transportation Association Rail Conference 2011 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The passage of Assembly Bill 1234 requires a report on trips that are made by an elected official on behalf of a public agency. The purpose of this report is to provide information on the recently -completed American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Rail Conference in Boston, June 12-15, 2011. On an annual basis, the APTA Rail Conference is held to address nearly every aspect of commuter rail and rail transit. With all the recent activity in high-speed rail, federal funding and other issues impacting the industry, this year had record attendance with over 1,200 participants. In addition there was significant Southern California presence including board members and staff from the other partner Metrolink Agencies. This conference provides a great opportunity to learn more about the industry's latest trends and challenges to developing effective transportation alternatives. In addition, a number of separate APTA Committee meetings were convened and members from the Commission participated in the High -Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Committee held on June 12. Attendees Chair Pettis and Commissioners Busch and Roberts participated in the APTA Rail Conference. Workshops and Seminars There was an assortment of workshops that directly related to Metrolink commuter rail operations, safety, positive train control, high-speed rail, transit oriented development (TOD), and topics that relate to the development of the Perris Valley Line. The following list provides some examples: • Building Partnerships for Mixed Income TOD; • Positive Train Control Policy; • Integrating Intercity and High Speed Rail with Local Transit; • Measuring Safety Performance; • Return on Investment for High -Speed Rail; • Security Program Lifecycle; Agenda Item 12 300 • New Planning Partners for Sustainable Corridors; • Crashworthiness — Integrating New Perspectives; • Global Studies of Emerging High Speed Rail Programs; • Train Control; • Joint Development at Major Rail and Transit Terminals; • Contract Out or Perform In House; and • Where Will the Money Come From? Summary This year's conference provided very useful and timely information related to Metrolink and the Commission's Commuter Rail operations. This was a particularly informative conference that started off with a Host Forum presentation from the Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Transit Administration representatives, who emphasized the need for improved rail transportation and discussed funding challenges in operations and capital improvements. There were a number of workshop and luncheon events. One such luncheon speech was titled "The Power of Rail as a Foundation for Economic Growth", this discussion linked rail as a catalyst for economic development. The closing session discussion of "Calling Out the Rail Critics: Facts Are On Our Side" addressed the wave of concerns surrounding funding for high-speed rail and how states like Florida are impacted by turning down federal high-speed rail funding. In addition to these sessions, the conference provided a unique opportunity for networking and to discuss the issues related to rail service with others throughout the country. During the trade show, it was useful to learn about the new tools that vendors are using for corridor development and rail planning. Also, it was encouraging to speak to others regarding positive train control, safety, funding, and the challenges of providing reliable service in tough economic times. Overall, the conference was a success and provided a great opportunity to learn more about the industry. Agenda Item 12 • 301 Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: July 6, 2011 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of July 13, 2011 The July 13, 2011 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 8E - Amendment to Agreement with Callan Management Company dba Western Area Security Services Consultant(s): Western Area Security Service (WASS) 2919 W. Burbank Boulevard, Suite C Burbank, CA 91505 Michael Butler, President Agenda Item No. 8F - Agreement with Vendsight, Inc. to Provide a Station Advertising Revenue Program Consultant(s): Vendsight, Inc. 8021 Wing Ave. El Cajon, CA 92020 Michael Barnhill, President Agenda Item No. 8L - Amendments to Freeway Service Patrol Agreements Consultant(s): Pepe's Towing 2000 W. Key Street Colton, CA 92324 Jose Acosta, Owner Tri City Towing, Inc. 1661 W. Walnut St. San Bernardino, CA 92410 Clay Wooster, President RCTC Conflict of Interest Form Purpose: This form is provided to assist members of the RCTC Commissioners in meeting requirements of 87100 in documenting conflict of interests as related to RCTC RCTC Commission may be required to disclose and disqualify or voting on an agenda item due to personal income, real positions, or receipt of campaign contributions. If applicable, the following information, for entry into the public record, prior to item(s) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past conclusion from any entity or individual. Government Code Section 84308 and Commission/Committee agenda items. Instructions: Under certain circumstances, themselves from participating in, influencing, property interests, investments, business Commissioners must personally state consideration of the involved agenda prior to leaving the meeting. An concerning a contract or amendment if 12 months or 3 months following the I. Board Member Information Board Member Name City/County Name Meeting Date frl Priei6 .,,..c ASHLi A( (/ .- efi \,,-- c---,,a,j, y ad 7-13-V II. Campaign Contributions 1. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 2. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 3. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation 4. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution and therefore I am abstaining from participation of over $250 from /7-) .---5:10,-- (LT %G -C -c' l,4,- G..,, , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , L , Subject: 4 1i-k\ 14-in.erJ ��. j'�fLc^M�v/!� cf"r'L"t C�-t' /. �1-%At.;.L of over $250 from Pc -GA_.. --,mµ.7 , , (Identify tr -naute,of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: . of over $250 from (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: , of over $250 from (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) on Agenda item , Subject: . III. Financial Interest 1. I have a financial interest of , from/in (State income, and therefore I am abstaining from participation 2. I have a financial interest of real property interest, investment or business position) (Identify name of company or property location) on Agenda Item , Subject: , from/in (State income, and therefore I am abstaining from participation real property interest, investment or business position) (Identify name of company or property location) on Agenda Item , Subject: IV. Signature Board Member Signaturer�� /( O(,L�� Date: 9 /3 —1/ Please remember you must state the information into the public record prior to consideration of the involved agenda item(s) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:55 AM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC July Commission Agenda Importance: High Good Morning Commission Alternates: Attached below is the link to the July 13, 2011 Commission Meeting Agenda. Please copy the link and paste it into a web page http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda 2011 O7.pdf. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:58 AM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC July Commission Agenda - Ipad Users Attachments: Conflict of Interest Form.pdf; Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf Importance: High Good Morning Commissioners, The July Commission Agenda for the !Pad Users is available. Please copy the link below: http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda ipad.pdf In addition, attached is the conflict of interest memo and the form for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JULY 13, 2011 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS I f� l_ r ` G Lf'✓fG� 7,, iiiL [ ,5�i Cs,,,,::,,i.„ 9 zr 0 51 ' IZc r2 �//.6 , -1//01,..1...r-- `d°, 0.6 riP1 4/;- rr ,v o n4( R c— 6 i in e S tAo-j/`rte c9 N c,,e3a 's- / i)?E C v 44 % e E-2sc9 t_ ____ �� ,,--7-„,.,_& D cf,LTF\ u iS m,,C.f C ,s C'� -;vc&oa�LC,-,-�-, ,,,i..) 7. i✓g JA / % (J �� ft 64 tey, �,, bA,'1 /VL•iLiQ1 1QEID 01)--Th )7)&0421,-412 19 ("c", C._ ZAR/ O i AD�) �.. //b JA I -) rcrn7• P,,— S;' -?,J - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL JULY 13, 2011 Present Absent County of Riverside, District County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont 0 0 City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake 0 City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto J� 0 City of Temecula ;J' 0 City of Wildomar 0 Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 0