HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 28, 1999 Plans and ProgramsRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA T11
Records
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMivii
AGENDA
TIME: 12:00 P.M.
DATE: Monday, June 28, 1999
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office
3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
VIDEO CONFERENCE: Mojave Desert Air Quality Managing District
Governing Board Chambers, 2nd Floor
15428 Civic Drive, Victorville, CA 92392
o167a7
Plans and Programs Committee Members
Roy Wilson / County of Riverside, Chairman
Robin ReeserLowe / City of Hemet, Vice Chair
Jan Leja / City of Beaumont
Robert Crain [ City of Blythe
John Chlebnik / City of Calimesa
Eugene Bourbonnais / City of Canyon Lake
Doug Sherman / City of Desert Hot Springs
Percy Byrd / City of Indian Wells
Chris Silva / City of Indio
Frank Hall / City of Norco
Dick Kelly / City of Palm Desert
Will Kleindienst / City of Palm Springs
Al Landers / City of Perris
Bob Buster / County of Riverside
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Hideo Sugita, Director - Planning and Programming
Plans and Programs Committee
State Transportation Improvement Program
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
New Corridors
Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare)
Air Quality and Clean Fuels
Regional Agencies/Regional Planning
Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs
Congestion Management Program
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please
complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board.
1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
MEETING LOCATION
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100, RIVERSIDE 92501
CONFERENCE ROOM A
VIDEO CONFERENCE LOCATION
MOJAVE DESERT AIR QUALITY MANAGING DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR
15428 CIVIC DRIVE
VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE
ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1999
12:00 P.M.
AGENDA*
* Action _may be taken on any items listed on the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (MAY 24, 1999)
Pg. 1
2
4. SR 71/91 IMPROVEMENT STUDY
Pg. 7
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission approve the SR 71/91
Improvement Study Final Report.
5. UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES
Pg. 9
Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation
Advisory Council and staff recommend that the Plans and Programs
Committee recommend to the Commission:
1) That the Commission reaffirm its definition of "Unmet Transit
Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet";
2) That based upon a review of requests for services received
through the "unmet transit needs" hearing process, review of
existing services and proposed improvements to the available
services, the Commission make a finding that there are no
unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo
Verde Valley area;
3) That the Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-008.
6. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS FOR THE
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL
Pg. 14
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission approve the FY 2000-2006 Short
Range Transit Plans for the Riverside Transit Agency and Regional
Commuter Rail as presented.
3
7 FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
Pg. 50
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission approve the proposed FY 2000
FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County.
FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5311 RURAL TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM
Pg. 55
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission approve the proposed FY 1999-
2000 FTA Section 531 1 Program of Projects for Riverside County.
FY 1999-2000 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS
FOR TRANSIT
Pg. 57
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF
Allocations for Transit in Riverside County as shown on the attached
table.
10. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION
RESULTS
Pg. 60
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend the Commission 1) receive and file the evaluation study,
2) direct staff to use results from the study to write the RFP for
managing the Commuter Assistance Program in future years.
4
11. 1999 REVISIONS TO LOCAL GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION NO. 99-007, "A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND
ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT"
Pg. 61
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-007, "A
Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission
Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (pub. Resources Code § §2100
Et Seq.)."
12. DBE
Pg. 225
Staff recommends . that the Committee recommend that the
Commission: 1) Adopt the amended RCTC Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Program; 2) Set RCTC's overall DBE goal at 11.5%; and,
3) Authorize staff to resubmit its adopted plan and goal to the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
13. REAFFIRMATION OF CONFORMITY FINDINGS OF THE 1998 RTP
AND RTIP FOR PM 10 NON -ATTAINMENT AREAS
Pg. 280
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission receive and file.
5
14. CETAP UPDATE
Pg. 285
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission receive and file.
15. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Pg. 288
At the Committee's direction, recent rail reports and other pertinent
information are reproduced in a side packet for Committee meetings.
Staff will be available to review these materials and make oral
presentation if desired.
16. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission is DARK in August, therefore, there will not be a
Plans and Programs Committee meeting in July. The next
Committee meeting will be Monday, August 23, 1999, 12:00 noon,
at the RCTC offices.
AGENDA ITEM 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
May 24, 1999
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Vice Chair Robin Lowe
at 12:05 p.m., at the Riverside County Transportation Commission Conference Room, 3560
University Avenue, Riverside. She noted that Supervisor Bob Buster will be voting on behalf of
Supervisor Roy Wilson today. Self -introductions followed.
Members/Altemates Present: Members Absent:
Eugene Bourbonnais
Bob Buster
John Chlebnik
Frank Hall
Will Kleindienst
Al Landers
Michael Landis
Frank Parrot
Robin Reeser Lowe
Doug Sherman
Robert Crain
Dick Kelly
Chris Silva
Roy Wilson
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the public.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (APRIL 26, 1999)
M/S/C -to approve the minutes dated April 26, 1999 as submitted.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 99-005, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION AMENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEASURE A
FUNDED COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROJECTS AS PART OF ITS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM"
M/S/C that the Commission approve Resolution No. 99-005, "Resolution of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Guidelines for the
Administration of the Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as Part of its
Commuter Assistance Program."
5. FY 99/00 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING
CONTINUATION REQUESTS.
M/S/C that the Commission approve, pursuant to its existing Measure A Commuter
Assistance Buspool Subsidy Policy: 1) payment of $1,175/month for the period of
July 1, 1999 to June 20, 2000 to the existing Riverside/Fullerton, Riverside/EI
Segundo, and Moreno Valley/EI Segundo buspools, and one additional buspool upon
receipt of a written request for subsidy support; and 2) continuation of the existing
monthly and semiannual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation
to monthly subsidy payments.
6. SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FY 99/00 COMMUTER ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM CONTRACT
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) approve the SANBAG/RCTC contract to continue
implementation and management of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance program for
FY 99/00; 2) authorize the Chairperson to execute the agreement on behalf of the
Commission; and 3) approve the incorporation of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance
Program consultant costs in the Commission's TDM consultant contract to perform
the work.
7. FY 99/00 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RIDESHARE AGREEMENT FOR REGIONAL RIDESHARE
CORE SERVICES
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) approve the Southern California Rideshare FY 99/00
Riverside Regional Rideshare Services Work Program; 2) authorize the expenditure
of Congestion/Mitigation/Air Quality funds in an amount not to exceed $253,141
pursuant to adoption of RCTC's FY 99/00 budget; and, 3) pursuant to legal counsel
review and approval, authorize the RCTC Chairman to execute an agreement with
SCR.
8. SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ANALYSIS FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
The following points were made during deliberation of this item:
♦ Heather Menninger, AMMA, said that she was contracted by the Commission to
look at several key questions regarding Measure A program duplication with public
transit provides, an assessment of these programs and looking at what kind of
unmet needs there might, developing goals and objectives for Commission
consideration and receiving recommendations regarding future award processes.
She then presented an overview of the approach AMMA took in completing this
study and their recommendations.
♦ Vice Chair Lowe stated that the majority of the complaints they receive in the
Hemet/San Jacinto Valley are from passengers, who are not ADA certified, although
otherwise qualified do not receive services from Dial -a -Ride because of the capacity
limitations. Heather Menninger replied that the Western Riverside County has about
2,300 people that are now ADA certified through RTA. This is low proportionately
in comparison to the rest of the country, because general dial -a -ride service is
offered which does not require ADA certifications.
♦ In response to Commissioner Bob Buster as to what would be their recommendation
on where to concentrate resources in the future, Heather Menninger suggested that
the place to start would be capacity building to make the existing system more
efficient and making the most of the resources that are currently available. She
added that there is a modest proportion of latent demand that is not being met.
M/S/C (Landers/Kleindienst) that the Commission approve the Western Riverside
County Specialized Transit Strategic Plan as presented in the attached report.
9. FINDINGS REGARDING MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT SERVICES OPERATED BY
FAMILY SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
The following points were made during deliberation of this item:
♦ Heather Menninger reviewed the following findings: 1) Service utilization of Measure A
dollars, because of the lack of match funding to provide these services; 2) Family Services
was given a low ranking for unduplicated service because they could not rule out duplication
of service from the data that was provided to them; 3) Family Services did not provide them
with a copy of their written procedures. In their viewpoints, it seemed that with the size of
the operation there should be some type of written procedure in the event of an emergency,
safety issues or handling passenger assistance requests. They were also unable to
establish whether there was coordination between RTA Jurupa Dial -a -Ride and Family
Service so they were given a low rating on coordination.
♦ Chris Banducci,. Family Services Association, informed the Committee that they were
notified that the study was complete last Thursday but only saw a copy of the letter of finding
this morning. He distributed a copy of the statistics that Family Services use internally and
the report that is submitted to RCTC quarterly. The internal report is generated from trip
sheets that their drivers use on their daily route. During the time that the information was
requested by AMMA, he was unavailable to provide that information. He was uncomfortable
providing copies of this information to them because they are used as time sheets and labor
logs so he was not sure whether they were considered confidential. The question of
duplication of services is moot, because the majority of Family Services passengers are non-
ADA certified clients who are unable to obtain service with RTA with of capacity limitations.
He then went into more depth regarding the statistics provided in the handouts.
M/S/C (Lander/Bourbonnais) that the Commission approve the suggested
improvement listed below for Family Services' Measure A supported service
in the Jurupa area:
1. Reaffirm the Commission's June 1998 action to allocate $72,500 to
Family services in FY 2000 to be used to support the operation of one
vehicle in the Rubidoux/Jurupa area. This vehicle should focus on
providing service for the Swan Lake area as well as interjurisdictional
trips not served by the Jurupa Dial -A -Ride.
2. A written plan for improvement should be developed by Family
Services which identifies measure that will be taken to:
a. Improve documentation of policies and procedures for
vehicle operations.
b. Improve operational reporting for the Measure A funded
program.
c. Define services which will be provided to seniors and person
with disabilities with a single vehicle.
d. Coordinate activities to minimize overlap and duplication with
the Jurupa Dial -A -Ride.
3. RCTC staff should work closely with Family Services to provide
technical assistance as needed as well as clearly defined reporting
requirements.
10. SPECIALIZED TRANSIT EQUIPMENT NEEDS
The following points were made during deliberation of this item:
Commissioner John Chlebnick suggested alerting the FCC about the issues and perhaps
make it a requirement or condition of any merger or buyout so that undue pressure or
financial hardship is not put on the customers using the service.
♦ Hideo Sugita explained that the call boxes work on an analog -cellular system, but when they
were first installed nine years they were aware of the coming change to digital. The FCC
did rule that for cellular radio they would be required to run dual systems indefinitely. There
may be some change in that as the digital systems become more reliable and allows a
greater number of customers to access the system. He is uncertain on how this works on
the radio side. He will approach County Communications to discuss this matter. It might
require bringing in a consultant familiar with this technology to advise us on the best course
of action.
♦ Vice Chair Lowe said that she was contacted by Care -A -Van Transit. They are in a very
difficult situation because their equipment is very old and they were not planning to replace
it for another two years.
♦ Commissioner Kleindienst said that he is trying to understand where the Commission's
focus should be. He asked what type of equipment being advocating and why if two of the
five operators have addressed this issue is there another source for the other three to tap
into. He added that this is a broader issue than first thought, because this is an opportunity
to coordinate these systems with emergency services.
♦ Susan Hafner, General Manager of Riverside Transit Agency , agreed that this is an
excellent opportunity for the transit community to coordinate radio communications. If they
all have similar radio systems, it will allow sharing of resources and using downtime capacity
to work together more effectively. RTA will work with RCTC and the County transit
operators to come up with a solution.
♦ Commissioner Buster suggested including the County Sheriff's Department as they have
been working on integrating radio communication for emergency services within the county.
M/S/C to receive and file this report on Specialized Transit Equipment Issues.
11. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
M/S/C that the Commission approve the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for
the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside and the SunLine Transit
Agency as presented.
12. MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE
TRANSIT AGENCY
M/S/C that the Commission: 1) Approve the FY 1999-2000 minimum required fare
revenue to operating expense ratio of 18.35% for the Riverside Transit Agency and
16.56% for the SunLine Transit Agency; 2) Reaffirm the methodology used to
calculate the required ratio; and 3) Request Caltrans' concurrence with the
methodology and ratios for FY 1999-2000.
13. STIP PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
RCTC AND CVAG
MIS/C that the Commission approve and execute the attached funding agreement
between RCTC and CVAG for the use of STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring
funds.
i.%t�aiyr
14. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT NO. RO-9970 TO PRODUCE A FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR FUTURE NORTH/SOUTH CORRIDORS BETWEEN 1-10 AND SR -60 BETWEEN 1-15 AND
1-215
M/S/C that the Commission award Consultant Contract No. RO-9970 to produce a
Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR -60 between
1-15 and 1-215 for the amount of $99,867. RCTC model consultant agreement will be
used and reviewed by Legal Counsel.
15. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PILOT PROJECT EVALUATION
The following points were made on this item:
t Hideo Sugita explained that RCTC also serves as the Congestion Management Agency for
Riverside County, and as such about a year and a half ago decided to get out of the land
use regulation business and move forward with a pilot project for counter call boxes. One
of the requirement under ISTEA and followed up in TEA 21 is to perform traffic monitoring
of the highway system. Partially this is related to developing performance indicators and
measuring the performance of the transportation system. They have moved forward with
a pilot project to review how effective a counter call box project could be.
♦ Georgina Vivian, VRPA Technologies, presented an evaluation of the smart call box traffic
monitoring program. She reviewed the study purpose, what is a smart call box (the pilot
program component and the difference between a smart call box and a regular one), an
evaluation of the program including the risks and cost benefits, a comparison of the smart
call box versus the conventional method for counting traffic and finally the conclusion that
includes the advantages of a smart call box system, as well as the next steps in the
process.
♦ Commissioner Buster asked whether the system can distinguish between trucks and cars
while counting the traffic volume and Georgienna Vivian replied that it can because the
Diamond Phoenix Counter is a classification counter that can identify the number of axles
that the vehicle has as it is crossing over the loop detectors.
♦ Hideo Sugita explained that a number of locations have been determined for locating the
smart call boxes for the pilot program. They are trying to strategically locate them in heavy
traffic areas to understand traffic movement and volumes.
+ Commissioner Buster expressed that accessibility issues be taken into account when
locating the call boxes. He noted the claim against Los Angeles County on this issue.
Hideo Sugita said that this is being monitored as staff understands the significant impact it
will have on the call box program as a whole.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the staff request to allocate $500,000 of
State Transportation Improvement Program funds for the purchase of
additional `Smart' Call Boxes on the Congestion Management Program
network.
16. CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEMS
Committee members expressed that by discussing the items on the agenda is a way for new
members to become more familiar with RCTC programs and issues. It was, therefore, determined
to continue with the same format in developing the agenda for the Plans and Programs Committee.
L/ 0UJ
17. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
C�'iL4JJV
AGENDA ITEM 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
RCTC Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Paul Blackwelder,,, Deputy Executive Director
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
SR 71/91 Improvement Study
State Route 71 from Route 91 to the San Bernardino County Line had become a
serious problem by 1995 due to 1) increasing traffic from the rapidly developing Chino
and Chino Hills areas; 2) a high accident rate, which included a number of head on
collisions; and 3) the beginning of construction to widen this two lane highway to six
lanes from the San Bernardino County Line to State Route 60 funded by the San
Bernardino County %2 cent Local Sales Tax Program. The Riverside County Measure
"A" Highway Program, approved one year prior to the San Bernardino County Measure
"M" Highway Program, did not identify funding for the widening of SR 71 from the
San Bernardino County Line to SR 91. In July, 1996, a State Route 71/91
Coordination Team comprised of elected officials from RCTC and SANBAG was
established along with a Technical Working Group of staff from RCTC, SANBAG,
Caltrans, SCAG and Riverside County. The Coordination Team was charged with
focusing short term improvements to solve the safety problems and identifying longer
range improvements to increase capacity.
Through the efforts of the Coordination Team, the California Transportation
Commission, and Congressmen Jay Kim and Ken Calvert, interim improvements have
been approved and funded. Using a combination of Caltrans SHOPP funding,
California Transportation Commission approved Interregional Road Funding, and federal
Demonstration Project Program, funded projects are underway to solve the immediate
safety problems and add some new capacity. Those improvements include installing
a median barrier, widening the highway from two to four lanes, and improving the
ramp connection from SR 71 to SR 91.
Through the efforts of Congressmen Kim and Calvert, federal Demonstration Project
funds were secured which allowed the Coordination Team to hire the firm of HDR
Engineering, Inc in 1996 to conduct a study which would a) identify the additional
improvements to provide the increased capacity on both SR 71 and 91 that will be
needed to accommodate the traffic demand resulting from continued development in
the western portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties; and b) identify and
evaluate the various methods available to the RCTC and SANBAG to fund those
improvements in the future. Enclosed is a copy of the Executive Summary for the
Of •
SR 71/91 Improvement Study prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. Mr Eric Keen from
HDR will present the alternatives and recommendations contained in the Final Report
at the Committee meeting. A copy of the full report will be provided to Committee
members upon request.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
N/A
Source of Funds
YIN
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Included in Program Budget
Year Programed
Year
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
_Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee recommend that the Commission approve the SR 71/91
Improvement Study Final Report.
O V L'U'J+%
AGENDA ITEM 5
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans & Programs Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation
Advisory Council
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Unmet Transit Needs Hearing Testimony and Responses Resolution
No. 99-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Adopting a Finding that there are no Unmet Transit
State law requires that prior to making any allocations of Local Transportation Funds
(LTF) not directly related to public transit, the Commission must identify the unmet
transit needs in the area and determine those that are reasonable to meet. At least
one public hearing must be held to solicit comments on unmet transit needs. The only
area that this determination of unmet needs is applicable is in the Palo Verde Valley
where it is anticipated that not all funds will be needed for transit. In the Western
County and Coachella Valley, all available LTF are being used for transit service.
The Commission held a public hearing in Blythe on March 4, 1999. Commissioners
Wilson and Crain acted as the hearing board. Notice of the hearing was advertised
twice in the local newspaper and notices were mailed to social service agencies in the
area, the local college, medical facilities, public library, and residents who previously
had expressed interest in transit services. We had three (3) people provide comments
at the hearing regarding the service needs in the area.
Attached is a summary of the comments received. We worked with staff from the
City of Blythe as well as the TRIP Program Director to determine what improvements
were reasonable to meet based on the projected productivity. The proposals related
to connecting service to the VA hospital in Loma Linda appear to be premature at this
time based on conversations with Mr. Bill Densmore, Director of Veteran Services for
the County of Riverside. A concerted effort will be made by PVVTA and the
contractor staff to better inform the public of the TRIP program and its policies.
Prior to allocating any Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for street and road
purposes, the Commission must adopt by resolution a finding that there are no unmet
transit needs that can be reasonably met by existing or proposed service contained in
the Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County. The Commission previously
adopted a definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet." The
OG JUiJ,j
definitions are as follows:
"Unmet Transit Needs are, at a minimum, those public transportation or
specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short
Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional
Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded."
"Reasonable to meet shall include the following factors: community
acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost
effectiveness including the ability to meet the required farebox ratios."
The Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory Council
reviewed the service requests and responses at their meeting on May 17. The
Committee recommended approval of the responses and the staff recommendation.
All persons that provided comments were provided written responses and notified of
the CAC meeting and this Commission meeting.
CITIZENS 'ADADVISORY' COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTA TJOIV ADVISORY
COUNCIL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend to the Commission:
1) That the Commission reaffirm its definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and
"Reasonable to Meet";
2) That based upon a review of requests for services received through the "unmet
transit needs" hearing process, review of existing services and proposed
improvements to the available services, the Commission make a finding that
there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde
Valley area;
3) That the Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-008, "Resolution of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission Adopting a Finding that there are no Unmet
Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area."
0
�1
RESOLUTION NO. 99-008
RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION ADOPTING A. FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET
TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE PALO VERDE
VALLEY AREA
WHEREAS, the Commission has identified the transit needs of residents in the
Palo Verde Valley area, including the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and the
transit dependent; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has held a properly noticed public hearing on
March 4, 1999, and solicited written comments, to gather information to assist in
identifying unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "Unmet Transit Needs" as, at a
minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are
identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional
Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "reasonable to meet" as including the
following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term
and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required
farebox ratios; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 99401 .5, the
Commission has consulted with the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social
Services Transportation Advisory Council regarding the transit needs of the Palo Verde
Valley area; and
WHEREAS, an analysis of the existing public transportation services (dial -a -ride)
in the Palo Verde Valley has been completed, and with the planned improvements that
will be included in the FY 2000-2006 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan, was
found to be adequate to meet the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, the
transit dependent and the general public;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby
resolves:
That the Commission adopts the finding that there are no unmet transit needs
in the Palo Verde Valley area of Riverside County that are reasonable to meet.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 14th day of July, 1999.
ATTEST:
Jack F. van Haaster, Chairperson
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission
OCJ) 2
FY 99-00 UNI'. TR ANSIT NEEDS
Summary of Testimony and Staff Responses
BLYTHE CITY HALL
March 4, 1999
Name/Organizati on
Summary of C omme nts
Staff Resra onse
Paula Adair
•1
Blythe Nursing Care
285 W. Chanslorway
Blythe, CA 92225
Needs transportation for the elderly and
wheelchair handicapped people to the
Coachella Valley for special doctor needs.
The TRIP program, which
pr ovides reimbursement to
volunteer drivers, is currently
available and residents could
also use Greyhound services to
reach the Coachella Valley .
PVVTA and the TRIP Director
will work to increase
aware ness of these services .
Rhonda -Somerville
Blythe Nursing Care
285 W. Chanslo rway
Blythe, CA 92225
Followed up on what above individual
requested. N eeds transportation back and
forth for our residents to and from the
hospitals (in Coachella Valley) for x-rays,
check-ups, whatever e valuation is needed
there-:
See response abo ve.
Bill Densmore, Director
Dept. of Veteran Services
County of Riv erside
1 153 Spruce St.
Riverside, CA 92507
Need transportation from Palo Verde Valley
to the Veteran's Administration (VA)
Hospital in Loma Linda.
RCTC and PVVTA will work
jointly with SunLine to attempt
to coordinate a link with the
Vets Express in order to
provide service to the VA
hospital. Also, the TRIP
pr ogram could be used to reach
the Coachella Valley.
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans & Programs Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Riverside Transit
Agency and Regional Commuter Rail
At its meeting on June 2, 1999, the Commission approved the FY 2000-2006 Short
Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside
and the SunLine Transit Agency. The Riverside County (SRTP) covers the three
apportionment areas of the county and is comprised of plans for the above five
operators, the Riverside Transit Agency, the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, and
Commuter Rail.
In the development of the Plan, the operators are using the new schedules and format
approved by the Commission on January 13, 1999, along with the Productivity
Improvement Plan. Consequently, not all of the operators were able to complete their
plans in time for submission to the Commission for the June meeting.
The Plans for the Riverside Transit Agency and Commuter Rail is scheduled to be
reviewed by the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee on June 23, 1999. Their
recommendation will be given at the Plans and Programs Committee meeting.
Following is a summary of service highlights:
Regional Commuter Rail
Initially, it was expected that no new service would be possible during FY 1999-00;
however, an opportunity has arisen which may allow the addition of a mid -day round
trip on the Inland Empire - Orange County Line. The attached memo from rail
consultant Carl Schiermeyer defines a proposal for using idle train equipment and
available crews to begin such a service augmentation in October, 1999. We are
currently working with Metrolink administration to see if the proposal is feasible. Staff
will be prepared to brief the Committee on our progress.
Other service and funding levels, as well as capital projects for the next fiscal year, are
defined in the draft Plan. Some tables are still being created and will be provided at
the Committee meeting.
The draft Plan is supported by the Commission's previous adoption of FY 1999-00
budgets for both RCTC and Metrolink (Southern California Regional Rail Authority).
RCTC pays a remarkably small percentage of Metrolink operating and maintenance
costs considering that 25 trains stop in Riverside County on weekdays and 9 on
Or
i Li 1.1
Saturdays. The approved allocation to Metrolink for FY2000 is $3.3million, including
capital maintenance.
Staff is in the process of updating a 7 -year rail capital program to reflect recent
funding actions by Congress, Amtrak, the California Transportation Commission, and
our sister county member agencies. To the extent possible, an updated Metrolink
strategic plan will be incorporated into RCTC's program. Staff expects to present a
draft of the Rail Capital Program at the Committee's August meeting for consideration
by the Commission in September.
Riverside Transit Agency
Riverside Transit Agency's SRTP proposes an operating budget of $26,162,141 for
FY 2000, an increase of 15.38% over FY 1999. The increase will support a 21%
increase in annual revenue service miles and hours. Increases in operating expenses
are attributable to a full year impact of the Comprehensive Operation Analysis service
changes implemented in April 1999, expansion of Sunday service effective in January
2000, ADA Intercity and after hours service, fuel costs and inflationary adjustments
for goods and services.
The capital budget for FY 2000 totals $18,601,000 and includes the following
projects: $2,450,000 for the purchase of seven replacement CNG coaches;
$1,290,000 for the purchase of eighteen replacement paratransit vehicles;
$7,000,000 for the purchase of 20 full-size clean -fueled expansion coaches;
$2,000,000 for the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Mobility Management
Project; $2,000,000 for the ITS fare collection system; $750,000 for the ITS
integration of RTA's essential software systems, and $1,200,000 for the design and
installation of a CNG fuel station to be located in Hemet. In addition, $1,171,000 has
been budgeted for a variety of miscellaneous items.
Financial Assessment
$41,784,434
LTF, STA, FTA, Measure "A"
Y Year Programmed
Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
Oti
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission approve the
FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Riverside Transit Agency and
Regional Commuter Rail as presented.
'I L'tJ1 14
, Susan Cornelison - ieoc midday train memo.doc — Page 1
TO: SUSAN CORNELISON
FROM: CARL SCHIERMEYER
DATE: JUNE 16, 1999
RE: ADDED TRAIN SERVICE ON THE INLAND EMPIRE
ORANGE COUNTY LINE
Recommendation
RCTC should seek to implement an additional round trip on the Inland Empire Orange County
(IEOC) line. This new round trip would meet two needs on this line: 1) the need for a midday
return train, and 2) the need for an earlier return train from Orange County work locations.
Given the relatively low gross cost of this new service (approximately $75,000 for 3/4 of the
year), RCTC should provide 100% of the funding guarantee, offset by passenger revenues.
Proposal
One of the trains used on the IEOC line is stored in San Bernardino during the midday. The
proposal is to use this train to provide an additional -round trip during the midday: This train
arrives in San Bernardino each weekday morning at 10:45 AM. Currently this train departs for
Irvine at 3:17 PM each weekday afternoon, with stops at Riverside at 3:37 PM, La Sierra at 3:47
PM and West Corona at 3:58 PM, arriving in Irvine at 4:46 PM.
The new train service would depart San Bernardino at 12:25 PM and arrive in Irvine at 1:45 PM.
This train would then reverse directions and depart Irvine at 2:00 PM for an arrival in Riverside
at 3:06 PM. The train would reverse directions in Riverside and depart for Irvine at 3:37 PM (as
in the current schedule). The net effect of these schedule changes is to provide two round trips
between Riverside and Irvine using the same set of equipment that currently provides just a
single round trip.
Current Train Schedule Proposed New Schedules
Depart San Bernardino
Depart Riverside
Depart La Sierra
Depart West Corona
Depart Irvine
Arrive Riverside
3:17 PM
3:37 PM
3:47 PM
3:58 PM
4:55 PM
5:58 PM
12:25 PM
12:45 PM 3:37 PM
12:55 PM 3:47 PM
1:05 PM 3:58 PM
2:00 PM 4:55 PM
3:06 PM 5:58 PM
Susan Comelison - ieoc midday train memo.doc
Page 2
Rationale For Service Addition
There are two principal reasons why this service should be added. The first is that the IEOC line
does not offer a completely balanced menu of schedule choices for its customers. The first IEOC
train of the morning arrives at its first Orange County station at Anaheim Canyon at 6:05 AM.
Commuters using this train cannot return home from Orange County until 4:33 PM, ten hours
after arriving. These schedule choices clgarly make the 6:05 AM train a less attractive choice
than other schedule options. The relatively low ridership on this 6:05 AM arrival reflects this
situation. On the other hand, a midday train departing Irvine at 2:00 PM would arrive in
Anaheim Canyon at 2:23 PM, providing a far more attractive departure time for commuters
choosing the earliest morning IEOC train.
The second reason supporting this service is that the universal experience of all other Metrolink
routes is that the availability of a midday return train appears to provide a comfort level to
commuters. Commuters, especially new commuters, are intimidated by the lack of any return
trains in the middle of the day. The availability of such service seems to provide an impetus for
the growth of the regular peak period trains, In other words, the actual midday train may not in
itself generate large ridership numbers but the mere fact that the service is available appears to
encourage reluctant commuters to try the basic service.
As it is. the IEOC line is the only line in the Metrolink system that does not have a midday return
train. And while strong ridership on these midday trains is not necessarily the goal of the midday
service, thesr Other Metrolink midday trains appear to perform quite well. The San Bernardino
midday train departs Los Angeles at 1:10 PM and averages 256 riders. The Riverside midday
train departs Los Angeles at 1:35 PM and averages 179 riders. The Antelope Valley midday
train departs Los Angeles at 1:52 PM and averages 134 riders. The Ventura County train departs
Los Angeles at 1:15 PM and averages 75 riders.
In conclusion, the addition of another train around the time described above would appear to
strengthen the existing train service by providing a matching evening return train to an early
morning train which currently has no attractive return train. The midday train would also fill a
perceived service gap by providing an early afternoon return train.
Cost of the New Service
RCTC has asked Metrolink to estimate the cost of providing this new service. The preliminary
estimate is that the "raw" cost of the new service would be approximately $100,000 for an entire
year. In addition to this "raw" cost, the effect of adding any new service is to re -allocate the total
system wide train miles by the amount of miles represented by the new service. The net effect,
were such a complete re -allocation of train miles triggered by this new service, would be to
increase RCTC's total share of train miles by 7.8% and its total gross costs by $228,500.
The "real" new costs are, of course, only $100,000. There is precedent within Metrolink to
forego this re -allocation of mileage when service is introduced mid -year. RCTC staff would
recommend that RCTC seek such a waiver as a condition of proceeding with this proposal.
C{ivt}1)
Susan Cornell
Exclusive RCTC Funding for This Proposal
All current operating costs for the IEOC service are shared by the three county agencies served
by this line: San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties. The proposal under consideration
adds a completely new round trip between Riverside and Orange Counties. The standard
procedure would be to split the costs of this new service between these two counties, based upon
the miles within each county.
The Orange County Transportation Authority is still operating under the effects of the
bankruptcy action of several years ago and does not have available funding in the current fiscal
year. Given the relatively low absolute costs for this service and the high potential to more than
break even financially, this would appear to be a prudent investment on the part of RCTC to
insure the continued growth and health of the IEOC line.
Financial Analysts
At $100,000 in new costs yearly, the average daily new cost for this service is approximately
$400. The current revenue per rider on this line is $4.61. Assuming average revenue of $4.00
per rider, this new service would require only 50 riders on each leg of the round trip to break
even. This assessment does not include any new induced ridership resulting from the more
attractive travel options.
Based upon the experience of all other Metrolink midday services, the prognosis is excellent that
the new service would attract at least the 50 riders on each leg of the round trip that is required to
fully cover all costs. Furthermore, it is likely that this new service would materially improve the
overall attractiveness of the IEOC line and lead to a measurable increase in route patronage of as
much as 5-8% within a six month period.
SUMMARY
At relatively low absolute cost, RCTC can implement an important service expansion to the
IEOC line. This service expansion has the potential to fully recover its costs as well as
increasing patronage overall on the line.
301
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMUTER RAIL
SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE
FY 2000 - 2006
June 18, 1999
Draft
Riverside County Transportation Commission
RCTC Rail Program
Introduction
The Riverside County Transportation Commission's rail program consists of planning, programming,
advocacy and implementation elements. Railroad corridors represent significant transportation
infrastructure in Riverside County. The RCTC studies issues, participates in discussions at the regional
state and federal levels, and directs various activities which are related to rail transportation.
As directed by Measure A, the local sales tax for transportation, the Commission helped create the
infrastructure and institutional umbrella for commuter rail service in Southern California. RCTC is a
partner in the Southern California Regional Rail Authority and contributes toward the development and
operation of the "Metrolink" commuter rail system.
A large part of RCTC's rail program budget supports operations, maintenance of way, capital maintenance,
and new capital projects for Metrolink services. Initially, construction of rail corridors, stations and
support facilities and acquisition of rolling stock was accomplished through the expenditure of state rail
bonds and the dedicated, local sales tax revenues. Some federal capital support was subsequently received
in the form of FEMA reimbursements for Northridge earthquake and 1998 El Nino storm damage. More
recently, certain capital improvement projects on the system were partially funded by the California's
intercity rail program and Amtrak.
Metrolink has no operating dollars of its own; all five member agencies, the transportation authorities or
commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, must approve
SCRRA's annual operating plan and budget, committing to contribute a specific share of operating and
capital costs. Currently, Metrolink operating expense is borne entirely by passenger fares, re -collectable
payments from freight railroads, interest income, and subsidies from the five member agencies. Because
there are significant system -wide overhead expenses, known as "common costs," decisions by each county
regarding service levels have the effect of altering the allocation oft ommon costs among all the counties.
Consequently, development of the SCRRA operating plan and budget is an ongoing process.
Another major element in the, rail program is reflected in RCTC's support services. These include
administration, overhead, operation and maintenance of four rail stations, legislative and regulatory
analysis and advocacy, and outside consultant support.
A third element consists of rail -related construction projects administered by RCTC and funded through
a combination of Measure A local sales tax, state bond revenues and various grants. Construction of two
new stations (La Sierra and West Corona), expansion of the downtown Riverside station parking, extension
of Riverside layover track, and eastern access to the downtown station were accomplished in FY96.
Construction of a southside platform at Downtown Riverside with station track, main line connections and
a pedestrian overcrossing, was completed in FY98/99. One important aspect of the project is installation
of video surveillance equipment which will eventually link security efforts at all four RCTC-owned
stations. Pedestrian overcrossings and surveillance systems at the La Sierra and West Corona have been
designed with construction scheduled for FY99/00.
The Short Range Transit Plan for Commuter Rail incorporates a variety of activities which support these
elements.
1
0t.; O._1
Commuter Rail System Overview
The Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail program is part of the regional network
operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) - operating under the name of
Metrolink - a five -county joint powers agency composed of the transportation commissions of Los Angeles,
San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura counties. The purpose of the Authority is to manage the
development and operation of commuter rail service in the five -county metropolitan area. The service is
currently operated under contract by Amtrak.
System Planning
In accordance with the provisions of SB 1402 (Presley), the SCRRA adopted a regional plan in June 1991,
entitled "The Southern California Commuter Rail 1991 Regional System Plan." The report defined a
system of eight commuter rail lines connecting the five counties. The plan was amended in Spring 1992
to include an additional route utilizing the Union Pacific right-of-way between Riverside and Los Angeles
via Ontario. Four of the planned nine lines would serve Riverside County residents.
Prior to the adoption of the regional report and the creation of the SCRRA, RCTC commissioned several
engineering and feasibility studies which were necessary to develop service options and negotiate with the
railroads:
Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Service: Feasibility Assessment (Nov. 1988)
Perris Rail Extension Study (Feb. 1989)
RCTC/ATSF Commuter Rail Study (Morrison Knudsen, Dec. 1990)
Each of these studies concluded that rail service was technically and financially feasible. The Measure A
Transportation Improvement Plan, approved by Riverside County voters in November 1988, identified and
committed $100 million for development and implementation of the program. The subsequent passage of
similar local sales tax measures in adjacent counties and statewide rail infrastructure bonds paved the way
for construction of a coordinated system.
After adoption of the regional plan, the SCRRA and its member agencies reached right-of-way purchase
and operating agreements with•the Union Pacific Railway (UP) and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe
(ATSF) Railroad (now Burlington Northern Santa Fe -- BNSF). Through these agreements, today's
commuter rail system evolved utilizing freight railroad corridors within Riverside County.
In 1995 RCTC commissioned the San Jacinto Branchline Refinement Study which identified possible
scenarios for future passenger service between Riverside and Moreno Valley, Perris, Hemet and San
Jacinto. Lack of necessary capital and operating funds have delayed service on that corridor indefmitely.
With most of the "1402 System" in place, SCRRA's planning efforts are now focused on future operations
and the mid- and long-term capital projects necessary to accommodate anticipated growth.
I• n
2
Metrolink Regional System Plan
Opened October, 1992
1. Ventura County Line
Moorpark to Los Angeles
Extended to Oxnard after Northridge earthquake, 1994
2. Santa Clarita Line (also called Antelope Valley Line)
Santa Clarita to Los Angeles
Extended to Lancaster after Northridge earthquake, 1994
Saturday service added in 1997
3 San Bernardino Line
Pomona to Los Angeles
Extended to San Bernardino in 1993
Saturday service added in 1995
Opened June. 1993
4, Riverside Line
Riverside to Los Angeles via Ontario
Opened March. 1994
5. Orange County Line .
Oceanside to Los Angeles
Opened October. 1995
6, Inland Empire - Orange County Line
Riverside to Irvine
Extended to San Bernardino, March 1996
Extended some trips to San Juan Capistrano, 1996-98
Modifications
Riverside to Los Angeles October 1997
Two reverse trains on Riverside Line moved onto Santa Fe route,
via Fullerton.
Saturday Service October 1998
Extended San Bernardino Line service into Downtown Riverside
Opening 2001 or Later
7. Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton (Peak period, peak direction)
Opening Post 2001
8. Hemet/San Jacinto to Riverside
9. Redlands to San Bernardino
3
01 Li j
Rail Service Operations
The SCRRA operates six commuter rail lines (see system map). Two routes directly serve western
Riverside County, with connecting service available to destinations on the other four lines. Metrolink's
regular operations are conducted Monday through Friday, averaging 255 days per year. Reduced
frequency Saturday service is now also offered on the San Bernardino and Santa Clarita/Antelope Valley
lines, and was extended to Downtown Riverside (via San Bernardino) in October. 1998. Trains do not
normally operate on the following major holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
Since the first three lines opened in October of 1992, the system has experienced tremendous growth with
operating levels and ridership greatly exceeding initial projections.
Graphs in the Appendix show selected operating statistics for the Metrolink system from FY 92/93 through
the present. The figures illustrate the continuing growth and efficiency of Metrolink operations.
Projections for the coming fiscal year show the system's average daily ridership will have increased 416%
from its first year. Similarly, annual train -miles will have grown by 735%, while revenue recovery
increased 1060% and annual operating subsidy just 186% in the same time period. Subsidy per rider and
per passenger mile, however, will have decreased an average of 200%.
Service levels available on all routes are by agreement of the counties in which the lines operate, as the
effected counties must fund a proportionate share of line operations (direct costs). Consequently, one
county's preference for service may not be met if the other impacted counties do not concur.
A large portion of the system's Operating Budget is dedicated to Maintenance -of -Way, on -going
maintenance of the railroad track, right of way, signals, and grade crossings. The corridors serving
Riverside County are owed by private freight railroads, so RCTC's contribution to maintenance -of -way
is significantly less than that of the other county agencies. However, passenger service levels on the
Riverside County corridors are therefore more constrained by freight operations.
Riverside County Commuter Railroad Corridors
Route
Riverside to Los Angeles via Ontario
San Bernardino / Riverside to
Irvine / San Juan Capistrano
Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton
Hemet / San Jacinto to Riverside
Railroad Corridor
Union Pacific's Los Angeles Subdivision
BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision,
OCTA's Olive Branch and San Diego Subdivision
BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision
Former ATSF San Jacinto Branch
(owned by RCTC, BNSF retains freight rights)
4
Line Descriptions of Routes Within or Serving Riverside County
RIVERSIDE LINE
Riverside to Los Angeles via Ontario
This line extends 58.7 miles between the city of Riverside and the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal
(LAUPT) along the Union Pacific (UP) alignment. The route roughly follows the Pomona Freeway
corridor (SR 60) through the cities and communities of Pedley, Mira Loma, Ontario, Pomona, West
Covina, Walnut, Industry, La Puente, Montebello, and Commerce. Existing stations include Downtown
Riverside, Pedley, East Ontario, Industry, Montebello, and the terminal point in downtown Los Angeles.
A station at Pomona is currently scheduled for completion in the coming fiscal year.
The scheduled peak -direction trip time between downtown Riverside and LAUPT is 75 minutes which
includes dwell time at intermediate stations. Running time will increase slightly once the Pomona stop is
added to the schedule. The line is jointly funded by the Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC), the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SanBAG), and the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA).
The route is extended to Glendale and Burbank via timed connections at Los Angeles Union Station.
INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY LINE
San Bernardino/Riverside to Irvine/San Juan Capistrano
This route extends 70.9 miles between the City of San Bernardino in San Bernardino County and Irvine
and San Juan Capistrano in Orange County. The line began operating between Riverside and Irvine in
October 1995. Extension of service to San Bernardino was accomplished in March 1996, and a single
round trip to San Juan Capistrano was added in the November, 1996 schedule. The alignment roughly
follows the Riverside Freeway (SR 91) along the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision through Riverside
County into Orange County. At a point just west of Lakeview Avenue within.Anaheim, the route branches
southward for six miles along the Olive Branchline to Orange, then continues southward along the San
Diego Subdivision.
One statidn.in San Bernardino County, three stations within Riverside County and five within Orange
County now serve the line: San Bernardino, Riverside -Downtown, Riverside -La Sierra, West Corona,
Anaheim Canyon, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano. The possibility exists for adding
stations in Riverside County on lands owned by the Commission. Potential sites, classified as possible Tier
II stations, include Highgrove, central Corona, and Van Buren in Riverside. Within Orange County, the
city of Yorba Linda is considering a possible station site, and planning is underway for stations at Tustin
and Mission Viejo.
The current running time between downtown Riverside and Irvine is approximately 63 minutes. The line
is a jointly funded project of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SanBAG), and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).
Trains are scheduled to connect with Orange County Line trains at the city of Orange for destinations in
Los Angeles and San Diego counties.
5
RIVERSIDE - LOS ANGELES via Fullerton
This line extends 61.6 miles between Riverside and Downtown Los Angeles. The necessary improvements
have been completed, but OCTA (a funding partner on the line) is not yet able to dedicate resources for
peak period operations.
The alignment roughly follows the Riverside Freeway (SR 91) along the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision
through Riverside County to Fullerton in Orange County where it continues northwest to downtown Los
Angeles. Existing stations which could be served by this line include Downtown Riverside, La Sierra,
West Corona, Fullerton, Norwalk, Commerce and Los Angeles Union Station. A planned station at Buena
Park and the potential Yorba Linda station are also along this route.
The line is a jointly funded project of three transportation commissions: Riverside, Orange, and Los
Angeles. The agreement between RCTC and OCTA (adopted Nov. 1992), which provided for two round-
trip peak period trains through Fullerton, was modified in 1996 to shift those trips to the Irvine service.
Three reverse trains currently operate over this alignment, but, since these trains are primarily equipment
moves to accommodate the Riverside and Inland Empire lines, with very little ridership, this does not
constitute actual peak service on the route. The shift does provide, however, limited reverse commute
service from Los Angeles and Orange County into Corona and Riverside.
HEMET/SAN JACINTO - RIVERSIDE
This proposed route extends 38.3 miles between Highgrove and Hemet within Riverside County. The
alignment roughly follows the Escondido Expressway (SR 215) to Perris where it veers east, parallel to
State Route 74, to Hemet and north to San Jacinto. The line operating costs would be funded solely by
the RCTC.
The line is currently in very poor condition, consisting of substandard, deteriorated wood ties and 60 -year -
old jointed rail. A considerable rehabilitation program and full signalization effort will be required prior
to implementation of passenger service.
The San Jacinto Branch Line Refinement Study (Boyle Engineering, 1995) estimated the capital costs of
bringing the Line up to commuter rail operating standards and building stations at $101 million. As part
of the study, a range of operating alternatives were considered, including whether trains would operate as
extensions of regular Metrolink service or be operated by another agency, possibly using an alternative
locomotive technology. Conceptual plans envision the line as a feeder service to other Metrolink lines
operating from the Downtown Riverside Station.
In light of the significant capital, maintenance, and operating costs, RCTC has deferred extensive
improvements to the line until additional funding can be secured. (A federal funding demonstration project
is currently being considered.) The Commission has programmed some incremental improvements through.
the CMAQ program and is pursuing rail "new start" funding under the current federal authorization act,
TEA -21.
v t) 0 U
6
Current Service in Riverside County
RIVERSIDE LINE
Five peak -period round -trips and one off-peak round-trip operate Monday through Friday from Riverside
to Los Angeles on the Union Pacific's mainline right of way. Operations on this line began in June, 1993.
One reverse -peak round-trip was moved to the Santa Fe alignment via Fullerton and Norwalk to reduce
congestion on the Union Pacific route. Daily boardings, which fluctuate seasonally, have averaged around
4,000 since March, 1998. Approximately 43% of the morning boardings occur at Riverside County's two
stations on this line, at Downtown Riverside and Pedley. The entire route is 58 miles in length, and the
average trip length per passenger is 44 miles. Connecting transit service in Riverside County is provided
by Riverside Transit Agency fixed routes and Orange Blossom Trolley.
Current Stations Served:
Riverside - Downtown
The Pedley Station
East Ontario
Industry
Montebello / Commerce
L. A. Union Station
Connecting Metrolink service to:
Glendale
Burbank
Burbank Airport
San Bernardino Line
Santa Clarita Line
Ventura Line
INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY LINE
4066 Vine Street
6001 Pedley Road
3330 East Francis Street
600 S. Brea Canyon Road
601
800 N. Alameda Street
400 W. Cerritos Avenue
201 N. Front Street
3750 Empire Avenue
Three peak -period round-trip trains, an additional evening return train, and one round-trip reverse train
now operate Monday through Friday from San Bernardino to Irvine (with one round-trip and one reverse
extending to San Juan Capistrano) over lines owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and the
Orange County Transportation Authority. Service between Riverside and Orange counties began on
October 1, 1995, and was extended to San Bernardino in March, 1996. The third peak round-trip was
added in FY97 and the fourth evening return added in FY98. The route is 59 miles long with an average
trip length of 35 miles. Boardings have averaged approximately 1,600 per day since March, 1998.
Connecting transit in Riverside County is provided by Riverside Transit Agency and Corona Dial -A -Ride.
Bus and shuttle connections in Orange County are provided by OCTA, Anaheim Canyon Express, and Brea
Van -Go. OCTA does not currently provide transit connections to all trains.
The service utilizes Santa Fe's mainline right of way, the "San Bernardino Subdivision," running parallel
to Highway 91 and through the Santa Ana Canyon, then continue southwest on the Olive and Orange
subdivisions.
7
Stations Served:
San Bernardino
Riverside - Downtown
Riverside - La Sierra
West Corona
Anaheim Canyon
Orange
Santa Ana
Irvine
San Juan Capistrano
1204 West 3rd Street
4066 Vine Street
10901 Indiana Avenue
155 S. Auto Center Drive
1039 N. Pacificenter Dr., Anaheim
194 N. Atchison Street
1000 E. Santa Ana Boulevard
15215 Barranca Parkway
26701 Verdugo Street
Passengers originating 'in San Bernardino and Riverside counties may transfer at Orange to
northbound Orange County Line trains serving the following stations:
Anaheim Stadium
Fullerton
Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs
Commerce
2150 E. Katella Avenue
120 E. Santa Fe Avenue
12700 Imperial Highway, Norwalk
6433 26th Street, City of Commerce
L. A. Union Station 800 N. Alameda Street
(additional connections at Los Angeles to Burbank, Glendale, and beyond)
Passengers may also transfer to southbound Metrolink and Amtrak trains at Orange County stations
for destinations in San Diego County.
Proposed FY 2000 Service Levels
RIVERSIDE LINE
Additional Station opening on route FY99/00 Pomona
Monday - Friday Service
Five peak -period and one off-peak round trips between Riverside and Los Angeles.
Saturday Service
Nine one-way trips between Riverside and Los Angeles via San Bernardino, with connections to the
Antelope Valley Line at. L.A. Union Station. As in past years, the Commission may choose to underwrite
the costs of special event charter trains on this route.
INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY LINE
Additional Station opening on route FY99/00 Tustin
Possible Additional Station opening Mission Viejo/Laguna Niguel
Monday - Friday Service
Four peak -period and one off-peak round trips between San Bernardino or Riverside and destinations in
Orange County. If equipment scheduling permits, a mid -day round trip may be added in FY99/00.
8
Saturday/Sunday/Holiday Service
No regular weekend service is currently planned. In FY99/00, approximately 30 Summer "Beach Trains"
between the Inland Empire and Oceanside will be operated by Metrolink under direct charter to RCTC.
In addition, the Commission has authorized the charter of special event charter trains operated by
Metrolink. A special Thanksgiving Day service might be operated if the technical arrangements can be
made.
Proposed Future Service Levels FY 2001 - 2006
As previously noted, service levels are negotiated among the SCRRA member agencies.
Variables include each county's resources for operations and capital improvements and,
for Riverside County's case in particular, restrictions imposed by the host freight railroads.
RCTC's preferences for the remaining years of this Plan, which appear to be sustainable
under the existing funding formula, are as follows:
Monday - Friday Service
Riverside Line:
Add one round-trip for a total of 14 trains, with additional connections at Los Angeles.
Inland Empire - Orange County Line:
Add three round -trips for a total of 16 trains.
Expand connections to Oceanside and destinations south.
Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles:
Continue reverse moves for Riverside Line, adding frequencies if operationally viable.
Begin peak period, peak direction service with two round -trips.
Weekend Service
Two Saturday round -trips Riverside to Los Angeles on Riverside Line.
Continue Riverside to San Bernardino Line Saturday Service connections.
Seasonal service to San Clemente and Oceanside
9
Regular Weekday Service Levels
Total Peak and Off -Peak One -Way Trips
Line
Current
Service
FY
00
5
Year
10
Year
20
Year
Riverside Line (UP)
Riverside - Los Angeles
Inland Empire - Orange County
San Bernardino - Oceanside ")
San Bernardino - Irvine
Riverside - San Juan Capistrano
Riverside - Irvine
San Bernardino - San Juan Cap.
Sub -Total
Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles
San Bernardino - Los Angeles
Riverside - Los Angeles
Sub -Total
TOTAL ONE-WAY TRAINS
12
0
6
1
3
10
0
3
3
25
12
0
6
1
3
10
0
3
3
25
14
2
8
5
1
16
0
6
6
36
16
2
10
5
1
18
0
6
6
40
20
2
23
0
26
8
0
8
52
(I) Service to Oceanside is currently possible by connecting to the Orange County Line.
* One mid -day round trip may be added this fiscal year if equipment scheduling permits.
Saturday Service Levels
Total Off -Peak One -Way Trips
Operating Line
Riverside Line
Riverside - Los Angeles
San Bernardino Line
San Bernardino - Los Angeles
Riverside -San Bernardino -Los Angeles
Inland Empire - Orange County Line
Seasonal Beach Trains
Current Service
3
9
(2)
FY 2000
FY 2001
3
9
2
4
10
(2)
4
Total Off -Peak Saturday One -Way Trains
12
12
22
(2) 1999 Summer Beach Trains operated by Metrolink as charter to RCTC.
3U j
10
Fare Structure
The SCRRA fare structure is based .on a combination of two elements: the base fare and the distance
traveled. Metrolink routes are divided into zones of approximately 11 miles. A ticket's price depends on
how many zones the passenger travels through from boarding to alighting. All regular tickets and passes
include a free one -zone transfer to connecting transit service.
Fare Adjustments
On October 1, 1998, regular fares increased an average of 4% , the first adjustment since the system began
operations in 1992. The Metrolink Board had acted to phase -in a 12% increase over 3 years. Two
subsequent increases of 4% each are planned, but will only be implemented if necessary following
additional public hearings. Passengers who purchase a monthly pass from Riverside to Los Angeles at
the current rate ($216), and make 20 round trips per month, are traveling for 9 cents per mile.
Ticket Types
There are five types of regular Metrolink tickets:
One -Way. Good for a single one-way trip from the station where purchased to a selected
destination shown on the ticket. There is a $1.00 surcharge on the base fare for the single -ticket
purchase. A one-way ticket is valid for three hours from the time of purchase.
Round -Trip. The fare is double the one-way ticket, minus $1.00. Travel to the destination station
is valid for three hours; the return ticket may be used any time on the day of purchase.
Transfer Upgrade. Up to $1.00 discount offered on a one-way or round-trip ticket purchase
provided passenger has possession of a valid bus or rail transfer purchased from a connecting
transit operator.
Ten -Trip Ticket. This ticket is good for 10 one-way trips between two points made within 90 days
of purchase. It is significantly reduced in cost as it does not include the surcharge included in the
one-way and round-trip tickets. The ticket must be stamped by a validation machine at the
designated station prior to boarding the train. More than orie person can use a single ten -trip ticket
as long as each person's trip has been validation stamped before boarding.
Monthly Pass. The pass is good for unlimited travel during the calendar month between two
designated zones, or between two designated stations. Travel beyond the designated stations
requires additional fare payment. The cost of a monthly pass is roughly equivalent to 15 round
trips. Monthly passes are sold during the last 10 days and first 10 days of every month. Monthly
passes must be signed and are nontransferable.
Fare Categories and Discounts
Adult, age 19 to 64: Full fare during peak periods (see Off -Peak Travel below)
Youth, age 6 to 18: Full fare during peak periods (see Off -Peak Travel below)
Child under 6 years: One child under six years of age may ride free when accompanied
by an adult using a valid ticket. Additional children under six pay
full fare during peak hours and youth fare off peak.
11
Elderly, age 65 & over 50% off at all times. Proof of age required.
Disabled, any age:
Discounts for Off -Peak Travel
Adult, age 19 to 64:
Youth, ages 6 to 18:
December Monthly Pass Discount
50% off at all times. Acceptable proofs of disability:
- DMV placard ID card
- Social Security Disability Income card
- L.A. County Transit Operators Association ID card
- Other transit operator reduced fare ID card
25% off one-way and round-trip tickets purchased and used
during off-peak hours (anytime Saturday, or between 8:30 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m. and after 6:55 p.m., Monday through Friday.)
50% off one-way and round-trip tickets purchased and used.
during off-peak hours (anytime Saturday, or between 8:30 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m. and after 6:55 p.m., Monday through Friday.)
Pursuant to Authority Board action, Metrolink has offered December monthly passes at a 25 % discount.
The proposed FY 99-00 SCRRA Budget anticipates such a discount being available again in 1999.
Regular Fare Schedule, Effective October 1, 1998
Zones
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
One -Way
3.75
4.75
5.75
6.75.
7.75
8.75
9.75
Round -Li
26.00
6.25
8.25
10.50
12.50
14.50
16.75
18.75
36.50
46.75
57.25
67.50
78.00
88.25
Monthl Pass
83.25
116.50
149.50
183.00
216.00
249.75
283.00
Off Peak Fares, including Saturday Service, reflect a 25% reduction for adults and 50% reduction for
youth.
Senior/Disabled tickets are 50% of regular fares at all times and are not discounted further for off peak
travel.
4, 4.3
12
Regular Ticketing
Tickets may be purchased from Ticket Vending Machines located at each origin station using cash, credit
cards, and certain bank ATM debit cards. All ticket types are also available through the ticket agent at Los
Angeles Union Station. Monthly passes may also be purchased by mail.
Many commuters purchase monthly passes at their work sites through special arrangements between
Metrolink and major employers.
Special Ticketing
College Students: Participating colleges and universities offer discounted passes to full time students.
School Groups: Metrolink offers special rates for school field trips aboard trains having sufficient
seating capacity. Advance reservations are required and some restrictions apply.
Field trips fares in FY00 will be $3.00 each for students and accompanying adults.
Advance Purchase: Large groups may arrange for advance purchase of appropriate one-way or round-
trip tickets for a specified day of travel. No further discount. Advance ticketing
options are also available for persons with disabilities.
Fare Enforcement
Passengers traveling without appropriate, valid fare media are subject to citation and fine.
Metrolink fares are verified through a modified honor system call "proof of payment." When requested
by conductors or law enforcement personnel, passengers must present a valid ticket along with any required
proof of age or disability. Metrolink conductors have statutory authority to issues citations and to remove
passengers from trains. Not all trains are checked every day, but periodic verification "sweeps" of the
system have shown a fare evasion rate of about 1%.
Fare Revenue
Approximately 79% of all SCRRA operating revenues come from fares; most of the balance represents
payments from freight railroads to offset Metrolink's "maintenance -of -way" expense for track, signal and
right-of-way maintenance on corridors owned by one or more counties. On the Riverside Line, however,
virtually all revenue is from fares as RCTC receives no reimbursements from freight railroads.
Overall revenue recovery for the system will exceed 50% this year and is projected to be 56% of costs in
FY00.
13
4 1 rS
�,utJjj
COMMUTER RAIL CAPITAL 1999/00
RCTC's capital expenditures to support commuter rail fall into two major categories:
A. Projects managed by the SCRRA, funded through a variety of sources.
B. Projects administered directly by RCTC.
SCRRA CAPITAL 1999/2000
SCRRA New Capital Projects:
The Metrolink New Capital Budget for FY 1999/00 totals $36,500,000. There are just two projects in
which RCTC has a funding interest, totaling $756,399. Both of these projects are carried over from
previous fiscal years, with funds already on deposit at SCRRA.
1. Acquisition of Rolling Stock $7,939,863 RCTC share for match: $548,690
2. Purchase 18 new Ticket Machines 870,783 RCTC share: $207,709
RCTC's share of these projects was paid through a refund of state sales tax on rolling stock purchases.
SCRRA Capital Maintenance Projects
Metrolink's entire Capital Maintenance Budget for FY 1999/00 is $22,295,790 of which $7,448,357
represents ongoing projects.
RCTC's share of capitalized maintenance on right-of-way, joint facilities, and rolling stock is $314,649,
including the FY1999/00 contribution of $249,619 to be paid by Transportation Development Act funds.
FY 2000 - 2006
Until recently, the SCRRA's major capital document was the SB 1402 Plan. With most of those projects
completed, the SCRRA is now in the process of creating both a Strategic Plan and a Long Range Capital
Plan. Some of the working papers, as well as previous Regional Plan and grant submittals, have been used
to generate estimates of annual capital needs and expenditures.
14
APPENDICES
0L,u03J
SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget
6.11 Statistical Information
Date of Formation
Form of Government
Purpose
Member Agencies
Counties Served
Population (1997)
Route Miles in System
06/04/99, 2:29 PM
�uUJU
August 1991
Joint Powers Authority
To plan, design, construct and administer the operation of
regional passenger rail lines.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Orange County Transportation Authority
Riverside County Transportation Commission
San Bernardino Associated Governments
Ventura County Transportation Commission
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Riverside County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
Ventura County
Los Angeles County 9,603,291
Orange County 2,722,291
Riverside County 1441 237
San Bernardino County 1,621,874
,
San Diego County 2,794,785
Ventura County 730.824
Total Population: 18,914,302
• Los Angeles County 199
Orange County 87
Riverside County 38
San Bernardino County 39
San Diego County 19
Ventura County 34
Total Miles: 416
SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget
Route Miles
Potentially in System
(SB1402 Rev. 1993)
Train Equipment
Stations
Los Angeles County 222
Orange County 115
Riverside County 100
San Bernardino County 68
Ventura County 4
Total Miles: 539
Locomotives 33
Cab Cars 37
Coaches 82
Los Angeles County 22
Orange County 8
Riverside County 4
San Bernardino 7
San Diego County 1
Ventura County 4
Total Stations: 46
Ticket Vending Machines TVMs Installed 96
Validators Installed 117
Ticket Office Machines 3
Installed
Highway -Rail Grade Crossings Total Network Grade Crossings 399
Public Crossings 339
Private Crossings 61
SCRRA Maintained Crossings 238
Average Daily Riders Ventura County Line 3,977
(May 1999) Antelope Valley Line
3,964
San Bernardino Line 8,559
Riverside Line 4,126
Orange County Line 5,445
Inland Empire to Orange County 1,741
Burbank Turns 405
Riverside/Fullerton/LA 69
SYSTEM 28,286
06/04/99, 2:29 PM
SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget
Number of Auto Trips Removed per Day
Percent of Freeway Traffic Removed on Parallel Freeways
Each Peak Hour
Average Commute Trip Length
Percent of Riders Formerly Driving Alone
Percent of Riders with Downtown Los Angeles Destination
19,173 trips
8.5 percent
34.4 miles
70 percent
70 percent
Percent of Ethnic Riders by Line Corridor
(Latino, Asian, African -American)
San Bernardino Line
Riverside Line 53 percent
Antelope Valley Line 53 percent
Ventura County Line 32 percent
Orange County Line 29 percent
Systemwide 29 percent
39 percent
Source: 1997 State of California Department of Finance Report E5, SCRRA's April 1999 Fact
Sheet, May 1999 Ridership, and 1997 SCRRA annual ridership survey
06/04/99, 2:29 PM
O v v LI,-3
SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget
2.8 Performance Data
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 provide a summary of the FY 1999/00 performance data as projected in the
Budget and compares with historical data since 1992. The budget illustrates the continuing
growth and efficiency of Metrolink operations. As shown in Figure 2.1, both operating expenses
and train miles have increased, but operating expenses have increased at a significantly lower
rate. Fare revenues have increased with ridership, but as maintenance -of -way and dispatching
revenues have become relatively flat, total revenues are also increasing at a lesser rate. As a
result, operating subsidy has fluctuated, between $30.7, million and $40.1 million between FY
1993/94 and FY 1999/00. The significant decrease noted in Figure 2.1 in FY 1996/97 is
primarily due to the fact that SCRRA received a refund from the state on payment of sales tax on
rolling stock. These funds along with fares and other funds received in advance for operations
and capital projects earned interest during the year that was applied to the operating revenues.
Several factors contribute to the projected increase in subsidy for FY 1999/00 as compared with
the forecast for FY 1998/99:
• Train -miles have increased 9.8%
• Operating Expenses have increased 2.7%
• Average Weekday Ridership is projected to increase 5.0%
• Farebox Revenues are projected to increase 10%
• Maintenance -of -Way Revenues are projected to decrease by 0.8%
• Dispatching Revenues/Other Revenues are projected to decrease by 33% due tathe
projection of over $1 million in interest for FY 1998/99 while no interest is included in the
FY 1999/00 forecast.
06/04/99, 1:30 PM
0J ,vU33
FIGURE 2.1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92/93 TO FY 99/00
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
9203
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
93/94 94/95 95196 96!117 97/96 9609 99800
OPERATING EXPENSE ($Millions)
9219° 93194 94195 11596 9697 97196 9609 9W00
i.r
2,000
1,600
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
92/93 03/94 9405 96196 96177 97196 96011 ono
93194 9495 =W 9607 97196 9609 99890
OW 9304 94195 °5176 9607 V7196 99011 99199
Actuals through FY 97/99, Forecast for FY 98/99, Budget for FY 99/00
CHARTS00-xIs,GeneralSum to 00
6/4/99, 9:12 AM
SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget
Figure 2.2 provides the operating statistics. Revenue recovery is calculated as the ratio of total
operating revenues over total expenses less rolling stock lease and maintenance -of -way extra-
ordinary maintenance 2. Since FY 1995/96 the revenue recovery index has been over 50% and
is projected at 51.6% for FY 1999/00. The high of 56.3% in FY 1996/97 reflects the added
interest received that year. This index has not increased over the last three years as total
revenues are not increasing as fast as expenses. However, in past years, actual revenue recovery
ratios have been higher than the budget projection due to contingencies included in the annual
budgets as well as interest received on fares and other funds received in advance for operations
and capital projects. For example, in FY 1998/99, the revenue recovery is forecast to be 50.5%
compared with the budgeted value of 50.3%.
Farebox recovery which is calculated as the ratio of fare revenues over total expenses less rolling
stock lease, maintenance -of -way extra -ordinary maintenance, and maintenance -of -way revenues.
This index has steadily increased to 44.1% projected for FY 1999/00. Operating expense per
train -mile is calculated net of extra -ordinary maintenance and has decreased each year and is
projected to be $44.91 in FY 1999/00. Operating expense per passenger -mile has fluctuated
between $0.33 and $0.34 since FY 1995/96 and is projected to be $0.32 in FY 1999/00.
Operating subsidy per rider decreased as the system matured. In FY 1996/97 the added interest
resulted in the low of $5.22. The projection for FY 1999/00 is $5.34 in operating subsidy per
rider. As Metrolink trips are long, a better indication of the efficiency of the system is operating
subsidy per passenger -mile. This index has leveled out at $0.16 which is very competitive with
other transit properties in the region.
2 Extra -ordinary maintenance covers damages due to vandalism, crossing gate accidents, derailments, fires, storm
damage and other expenses as required. In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, about $500,000 has
been a reasonable estimate, and this is the Level proposed for FY 1999/00. In other years, such as has been
experienced in FY 1997/98 with the El Nifio storms, the total can easily exceed S3,500,000. In FY 1998/99, the
budget for Extra -ordinary Maintenance was set at $1,671,362.
06/04/99, 1:30 PM
FIGURE 2.2
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
OPERATING STATISTICS - FY 92/93 TO FY 99/00
REVENUE RECOVERY
93/04 9405 05/98 08197 97/9e 9d90 eeeo
OPERATING EXPENSE /TRAIN MILE
93/94 94195 95/96 96007 97/98 0&90 99100
S20 OPERATING SUBS DV/RI/3E
NM 9&06 96097 97/98 9490 99/00
Actuals to FY 97/98, Forecast for FY 98/99, Budget for FY 99/00
FAREBOX RECOVERY
0%
9=3 93/04 94195 95/26 9/197 9719, 98/99 MOO
$1.0
$0.5
S -
OPERATING EXPENSEIPASSEMGERMIILE
9?/113 03/04 9M95 05/06 9//97 97/98 9/190 M100
9?/D3 0&94 9495 05!98 08197 W/9e 9490 . KW
Lvti
614199 9-12 AM
SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget
2.9 Summary of FY 1999/00 Statistics by Line
Table 2.7 provides the estimated operating statistics by line for FY 1999/00 and the calculation
of various performance ratios. Revenues and expenses are allocated to lines using formulae
described in detail in Sections 6.1 through 6.4.
Average trip length for FY 1999/00 is 34.4 miles. This is lower than the 35.6 miles in average
trip length from prior years. The shorter trips are due to the opening of new stations such as
Montebello and Norwalk. Dependent on ridership and•revenues received for each line, operating
statistics vary considerably by line. The Orange County and San Bernardino Lines have the
highest revenue recovery and most favorable cost-effectiveness and service efficiency indices as
these line have the highest ridership per train and train -mile. The inland Empire -Orange County
and Antelope Valley lines have the lowest revenue recovery and least favorable cost-
effectiveness indices as these lines have lower ridership per train. The Ventura County and
Antelope Valley lines have the lowest service efficiencies with highest operating costs and
subsidy per train -mile.
06/04/99, .1:30 PM
OGJOli3
TAB'
SOUTHERN CALIF ORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET
FY 1999/00 PROJECTED STATISTICS BY LINE
O PERATING S TATISTICS:
Passenger Boarding,
Av erage Daily Ridership
P assenge r Mires
Train Miles
Avg Trip Length (miles)
FINANCIAL ($r000):
Operating Ca st (w/ MOW)
Ope rating Cost (w/o MO W Urn -Ordinary Maintenance)
Operating Cos t (w/o MOW)
Su bsidy (w/ MOW)
Re ve nues (1)
Ferebox Revenue
COST EFFECTIVENESS:
Op Cost/ Passenger (w/o MOW Extra -Ordin ary M aintenance
Op Cos t r Passenger Mile (wro MOW Um -Ordinary Maint)
Subsidy / Passenger
Su bsidy /Passen ger Mile
Avg Fare / Passenger
SERVICE EFFIC IENCY:
Op Cost / Train Mile
Op Cosi t Train Mile (w/o MOW Extra-Ordlnary Maln t)
Op Co si / Train M ire (w/o MOW)
Subsidy / Train M ile
Fsrthox Rec ove ry
Revenue Recovery
Notes:
('I) 'Re vensal
In clu deInclu de /are bus, dispatc hing fee s, and MOW re venues fro m rre lghi end Amtrntr due to In dividual member agencies .
expen ses for M etroflnk a nd M OW on
o perating and non -operatin g lines.
rr.1li)
2,123,800 971,250
8,200 3,750
72,846,340 29,234,625
414,131 219,114
34 .3 30 1
Alit
rtt
1,087,800
4,200
30,399,340
325,278
35 .3
119,987.3 112,089.7 $17,057.5
$19,864.1 $11,996 .0 $16,925.8
$14,843.7 $9,160 5 $12,187.4
$7,654 .8 $6,907 2 $10,124 .4
$12,332 .5 $5,182 5 $6,933 0
$10,251.9 $3,564 .5 $4,605.3
$9 .35
$0 27
$3.60
$0.11
$4.70
$48 26
$47. 97
$35. 84
$18.48
57.1%
62. 1%
112 35
$0 .41
$7 .11
$0 24
$3 67
$55.18
$54.75
$41.81
$31.52
32.8%
43.2%
$15 56
$0.44
I $9 .31
$0.26
$4 .00
$52.44
$52.03
$37 .47
$31 .13
30 7%
41 0%
ourlrbil'
Turns
90,650
350
743,330
88,202
82
11tCt 'sli
1,036,000
4,000
40,093,200
230,614
38.7
$10,025 3
$10,003.9
$9,561.1
$5,082.0
$4,943 .3
$4,703 .4
$9.66
$0 25
$4.91
$0.13
$4 .54
$43.47
$43.38
$41.46
$22.04
47 8%
49.4%
1,486,142
5,738
56,622,010
317,974
38 1
114 ,322 0
114,218 4
$10,789 .7
$5,341 .5
$6,980 5
$6,539.3
$9.57
$0 25
$3 59
$0 09
$4.40
$45 .04
$44.72
$33.93
$16.80
51 0%
83 2%
Irll�rsd Erti�ilr¢
Caron
505,050 7,300,692
1,950 28,188
13,636,350 251,575,195
174,462 1,769,776
27.0 34 5
$6,505 7
$6,479 5
$5,834 1
$3,860 6
$2,625 2
$2,328.3
$12 .83
$0 48
$7.68
$0 26
$4 .61
$37.29
$37 14
$33.44
$22.24
179,987 6
179,487 6
$62,376 6
$38,990 5
140,997 0
$31,992 7
$1089
$0 32
$5 34
$015
$431
145 20
$44 91
$35 25
$22 03
37.3 % 44 1%
405% 510%
S udg et7900.BsTlm
11/41 99 1 54 I'M
UPDATED
Riverside Line
Monday Through Friday Only
Effective May 17, 1999
TO LOS ANGELES
Riverside -Downtown
The Pedley Station
East Ontario
11e4MII METROLINK
A.M
4:50 5:50
5:01 6:01
5:10 6:10
Industry
Montebello/Commerce
L.A. Union Station 7
FROM LOS ANGELES
Train Numbers
L.A. Union Station
Montebello/Commerce
Industry
East Ontario
5:28 6:28
`5:45 `6:45
6:05 7:05
AM
5:45
6:30
6:20 6:55 8:20
6:31 7:06 8:31
6:40 7:15 8:40
6:58 7:33 8:58
`7:15 `7:51 9:15
7:35 10 9:35
1:35 4:10
1:52 `4:27
4:55
P.M
JEW
P.M
3:10 5:41
3:21
3:30
3:47
4:04
4:35 7:08
5:30
6:00
`6:17
6:35
5:12
`5:47
2:10 4:45
The Pedley Station
Riverside -Downtown
7
7:17
8:05
2:26 5:02
L2:37 `5:13
3:00 5:27
5:30
6:05
5:47 6:22
`5:58'6:33
6:12 6:41 4
Via Fullerton Line
TO LOS ANGELES
P. M.
Train Numbers
701
Riverside -Downtown
5:41
Riverside -La Sierra
West Corona
5:53
16:03
Fullerton
Norwalk -Santa Fe Springs
Commerce
L.A. Union Station y7
6:25
6:35
7:08
FROM LOS ANGLES
Train Numbers
L.A.Union Station
Commerce
Norwalk -Santa Fe Springs
Fullerton
i rQmar stop to receive or a NOTES
• *emerge passengers. Train may leave up to five rtslunes a,neso of saiedwe.
Every effort is made to meet our published schedule. Conditions may arise which cause delays that connections. Please allow time to transfer between Metrolink trains and other rail and bus camera. may result l wee
subject to change. Metrolink reserves the right to cancel and bras are
refunds. Metrolink is not responsible s, o scheduled train service prior or ticket
for rules. reguiatgns, or fares beyond its own lines.
West Corona
Riverside -La Sierra
Riverside -Downtown
V
6:35
6:52
6:52
7:10
7:27
`7:36
7:52
7:03
7:17
A.M.
700
702
5:45 6:30
6:09 6:54
1_6:19
L6:40
16:50
7:17
UPDATED 5/4
7:04
1.7:25
X7:37
8:05
0u 3045
Inland Empire -
Orange County Line
IennnErnouNK
Monday through Friday Service Effective May 17, 1999
TO IRVINE/SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Train Number
San Bernardino
A.M.
803
5:06
805
5:30
Riverside -Downtown 5:25 5:49
Riverside -La Sierra 5:35 5:59
West Corona 5:46 6:10
Anaheim Canyon L6:05 L6:29
Orange L6:12 L6:36
Santa Ana L6:17 L6:41
Irvine
San Juan Capistrano
6:29 6:54
RVINEISAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Train Numbers
San Juan Capistrano
Irvine
Santa Ana
Orange
Anaheim Canyon
West Corona
Riverside -La Sierra
Riverside_Downtowni
San Bernardino I
807
809
6:07
6:26 .7:34
6:36 7:44
6:47 7:54
7:06 8:12
L7:13 L8:21
L7:18 L8:25
L7:28 L8:35
7:45 8:50
A.M.
P.M.
811
3:17
701**
3:37 5:41
3:47 5:53
3:58 L6:03
L4:17
L4:24
L4:33
4:46
P.M.
800 802
7:17 8:05 L10:20
10:45
4:21
4:26
4:33
4:53
5:03
_. Regular stop to receive or discharge
" Trains "travel taRrom Los passengers. Train may leave to Eve minutes anead of schedule.
Every effort marked made a See Riverside Line for more times and slaions.
Every effort
Please atom meet ourto transfer haschedule. n � n Conditions may arias which cause delays that may result in missed
ubjeun eat to change. a all ink reserves nk trains and other rail and bus carriers. Schedule and fares we
csto c change.
k rs not right to cancel regularly scheduled fain
oorrsitik for rules. ulspons. or fares prior or ticket
eiun ITS own Imce.
5:05
5:10
5:17
5:38
5:43
5:50
6:18
6:30
6:35
6:42
L7:01
.L6:20 L7:11
`5:58 L6:31
6:23 6:56
UPDATED 4/29
L7:22
7:50
r
I
4
-1
San Bernardino Line
"crying Riverside Downtown
Saturday Service
TO LOS ANGELES
Train Numbers
Riverside -Downtown
San Bernardino
Rialto
Fontana
Rancho Cucamonga
Upland
Montclair
Claremont
Pomona
Covina
Baldwin Park
El Monte
Cal State Los Angeles
Los Angeles
A.M.
381
6:50
6:57
7:02
7:09
7:15
7:20
7:23
7:27
7:36
7:42
1M LOS ANGELES
Number
Los Angeles
Cal State Los Angeles
El Monte
17:50
L8:01
8:15
383
9:05
9:35
9:42
9:47
9:55
' 10:01
10:06
10:09
10:13
10:22
10:28
L10:36
110:46
11:00
A.M..
380
8:30
382
11:30
Baldwin Park
Covina
Pomona
Claremont
Montclair
Upland
Rancho Cucamonga
Fontana
Rialto
San Bernardino
Riverside-Dowritoum
r
8:40
8:50
8:59
11:40
11:50
11:59
9:05 12:05
9:14 12:14
9:18
9:21
19:26
19:32
L9:40
L9:48
L10:10
10:35
12:18
12:21
L12:26
12:32
12:42
L12:50
L1:12
1:37
385
1120
11:50
11:57
12:03
12:10
12:16
12:26
12:30
12:39
12:45
L12:53
L1:03
1:15
2:51
.e. METROLINK
Effective May 17, 1999
P.M.
387
1:25
1:32
1:37
1:44
1:50
1:55
1:58
2:02
2:17
389
3:20
3:52
3:59
4:04
4:12
4:19
4:24
4:27
4:31
4:40
4:46
4:54
L5:04
5:18
391
5:47
6:17
6:24
6:29
6:36
6:42
6:47
6:50
6:54
7:03
7:09
17:19
17:27
7:40
P.M_
384
1:55
2:05
2:15
2:27
2:33
2:42
3:33
386
3:10
3:20
3:30
3:39
3:45
3:54
3:58
4:01
14:07
14:15 16:40
14:23 1 16:48
L4:31 16:56
388
5:35
5:45
5:55
6:04
6:10
4:50
5:15
NOTES
L Regular stop to receive or discharge passengers. Train may leave up to five minutes ahead of schedule.
Every effort is made to meet our published schedule. Conditions may arise which cause delays that may result in missed
connections. Please allow time to transfer between Metrolink trains and other rail and bus corners. Schedule and fares are
subject to change. Mebolink reserves the right to cancel reputed), scheduled train service without prior notice or ticket
Metrolink is not responsible for rules. regulations, or fares beyond Its own tines. '
UPDATED 4/29
6:19
6:23
6:26
16:32
390
8:00
8:10
8:20
8:29
8:35
8:46
8:50
8:54
8:59
L9:05
L9:14
L9:19
L7:18 L9:41
7:43 10:06
VENTURA COUNTY
c41°*el‘4
4.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
a ,r`
Fitil."1"1"1.7
‘s cos0
\%0
Ventura County line
Santa Clarita line
San Bernardino Line
Riverside Line
Orange County Line
Inland Empire -Orange County line
Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles (Future)
Future Station Sites
1
eMETROLINK
SYSTEM MAP
11.97
los Angeles
Union Station
A
PACIFIC OCEAN
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
MAP NOI TO WAIF
Southern California's Commuter Train System
Iris An geles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties formed the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) in 1991 to develop METROLINK,
a regional commuter train system .
Trains carry lung -distance commuters from outlying communities to centers of
emplo yment, such as Burbank, Irvine and downtown Los Angeles. Train service began
on three lines and now serves six lines, with a seventh yet to open . By 2000
METROLINK will connect Southern California with mare than 450 miles of track and
50 stations, forming the nation's sixth largest commuter train system .
Instead of battling rush hour traffic to and from work, ride comfortable, fast, reliable
METROLINK trains and turn your commute into a relaxing experience.
Lines and Station Locations
SAN BERNARDINO LINE
Trains run from San Bernardino to Los Angeles, paralleling the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10).
The 57 -mile commute from San Bernardino to Los Angeles takes 85 minutes.
•SAN BERNARDINO
1204 W. 3rd Street
*RIALTO
261 S. Palm Avenue
•FONTANA
16777 Orange Way
*RANCHO CUCAMONGA
11208 Azusa Court
•UPLAND
300 East A Street
SANTA CLARITA LINE
•M ONTCLAIR
5091 Richton Street
•CLAREMONT
200 W. 1st Street
•POMONA
205 Santa Fe Street
• COVINA
600 N. Citrus Avenue
• BALDWIN PARK
3825 Downing Avenue
• EL M ONTE
10925 Railroad Street
•CAL STATE L.A.
5150 State University Drive
• L. A. UNION STATION
800 N. Alameda Street
Trains run tra in Lancaster to Los Angeles, paralleling the A
14) an d Go lden State Freeway (1-5).
The 76 -mile trip takes about 1-3/4 hours.
•LANCASTER • SANTA CLARITA
44742 Sierra Ilighway 22122 Soledad Canyo n Rd.
*VINCENT GRADE/ACTON •SYLMAR/SAN FERNANDO
(7550 W. Sierra Highway 2100 Frank M odugno Dr.
C•PRINCESSA * BURBANK
c J9201 Via Princessa 201 N. Front Street
Cl
CJ
ntelope Valley Freeway (State Ro ute
•GLENDALE
400 W. Cerritos Avenue
• L.A. UNION STATION
800 N. Alameda Street
For more information on Metrolink
schedules or fares call 800-371 -LINK
or visit our website at www.metrolinktrains.com
RIVERSIDE LINE:
Trains run from Riverside to Los Angeles, paralleling
The 59 -mile trip takes 70 minutes .
*RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN •EAST ONTARIO
4066 Vine Street
3330 E. Francis Street
*THE PEDLEY STATION 'INDUSTRY
6001 Pedley Road 600 S. Brea Canyon Road
VLN1IIRA COUNTY LINE
Trains run from Oxnard to Los Angeles, paralleling the
The 66 -mile trip takes 90 minutes.
• OXNARD •CHATSWORTH
201 East 4th Street 21510 Devonshire Street
'CA MARILLO •NORTHRIDGE
30 Lewis Road 8775 Wilbur Avenue
• MOORPARK •VAN NUYS
300 High Street 7720 Van Nuys Boulevard
• SI MI VALLEY •BURBANK AIRPORT
5050 Los Angeles Avenue 3750 Empire Avenue
ORANGE COUNTY LINE
Trains run from Oceanside to Los Angeles, paralleling
The 87 -mile trip takes just under two hours .
• OCEANSIDE *SANTA ANA
235 S. Tremont Street
"SAN CLEMENTE
1850 Avenida Estacion
• SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
26701 Verdugo Street
'IRVINE
15215 Barranca Parkway
the Pomona Freeway (60).
• MONTEBELLO/COM MERCE
601 S. Vail Avenue
'L .A . UNION STATION
800 N. Alameda Street
1000 E. Santa Ana Blvd.
*ORANGE
194 N. Atchison Street
*ANAHEIM
2150 E. Katella Avenue
•FULLERTON
120 E. Santa Fe Avenue
INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY LINE
Trains run from San Bernardino to Irvine, paralleling
The 59 -mile trip takes just over one hour.
"SAN BERNARDINO 'WEST CORONA
1204 W. 3rd Street
•RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN
4066 Vine Street
*RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA
10901 Indiana Avenue
Simi Valley Freeway (118) .
* BURBANK
201 N. Front Street
' GLENDALE
400 W. Cerritos Avenue
•L.A . UNION STATION
800 N. Alameda Street
the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5).
•NORWALK/ SANTA FE SPR .
12700 Imperial Hwy.
'CO MMERCE
6433 26th Street
*LA . UNION STATION
800 N. Alameda Street
the Riverside Freeway (91).
155 S. A uto Center Drive
*ANAHEIM CANYON
1039 N. Pacificenter Drive
'ORANGE
194 N. Atchison Street
"SANTA ANA
1000 E. Santa Ana Blvd.
•IRVINE
15215 Barranca Parkway
RIVERSIDE - FULLERTON - LOS ANGELES
A 60 -mile line will connect Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton, paralleling the Riverside
Freeway (91) and the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). Several new stations will be built in Orange
and Riverside counties for this service which is expected to begin in 1998 . Travel time to L .A.
will be approximately 90 minutes.
eMETROLPIK.
II 1891
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
FY 2000 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects
Annually, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) distributes federal operating and
capital block grant funds to urbanized areas through its Section 5307 Program
(formerly known as Section 9). There are four urbanized areas in Riverside County:
Western Riverside County; Hemet; Palm Springs; and Indio/Coachella. In order for
grants from these funds to be approved, the Commission must develop a Program of
Projects for each area, hold a public hearing on the programs, and approve the
programs.
Program of Projects for the four areas in Riverside County have been developed using
the FY 1998-99 area apportionments. The actual apportionments will not be known
until later this calendar year when final appropriations are made by Congress. The
Programs have been developed at the highest anticipated amount. to allow the
operators to proceed with filing their grant applications and to avoid delays, program
amendments and additional paperwork if the actual apportionments are in fact lower
than estimated.
The proposed Programs of Projects contain projects taken from the Short Range
Transit Plan (SRTP) for FY 2000-2006 and were developed in cooperation with the
eligible public transit operators. The balances available will be carried over to next
fiscal year.
As required, a notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper ten days
prior to this meeting and private transit operators have been provided a copy of each
program, advised of the hearing and encouraged to comment onthe programs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission approve the
proposed FY 2000 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County.
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 1999/00
%...iBANIZED AREA:
BUS APPORTIONMENT:
RAIL APPORTIONMENT:
CARRYOVER FUNDS -BUS:
CARRYOVER FUNDS -RAIL:
TRANSFER FUNDS -BUS:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -BUS:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -RAIL:
RECIPIENTS:
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
CITY OF CORONA
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS:
RIVERSIDE = SAN BERNARDINO
$4,465,893
$3,785,814
$2,519,572
$11,836,243
$0
$6,985,465
$15,622,057
(1) CITY OF CORONA -PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
(2) CITY OF RIVERSIDE - 3 REPLACEMENT VANS
(3) RTA - 7 TRANSIT REPLACEMENT COACHES
RTA - 18 REPLACEMENT DAR VANS
(5) RTA - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FOR
TRANSIT COACHES
(6) RTA - MAINTENANCE SPARE COMPONENTS
(7) RTA-OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT
(8) RTA - BUS STOP AMENITIES
(9) RTA- OFFICE EQUIPMENT
(10) RTA - 5 SERVICE SUPPORT VEHICLES (3R,2E)
(11) RTA - 2 FLEX -FUEL SERVICE TRUCKS (E)
(12) RTA - OFFICE ITS SOFTWARE INTEGRATION
(13) RTA - FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
TOTAL PROGRAMMED
BALANCE AVAILABLE -BUS
BALANCE AVAILABLE -RAIL
Program Approved by RCTC: 7/14/99
SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS
$4,658,000
$13,000
$124,000
TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED
AMOUNT
SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT
$510,400 $13,000 C
$150,000 $124,000 C
$2,450,000 $1,930,000 C
$1,290,000 $1,032,000 C
$393,000 $314,000 C
$170,000 $136,000 C
$40,000 $32,000 C
$100,000 $80,000 C
$288,000 $230,000 C
$100,000 $80,000 C
$80,000 $64,000 C
$750,000 $600,000 C
$1,400,000 $160,000 C
$5,571,400 $4,795,000
$2,190,465
$15,622,057
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
JR: 6/17/99
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 1999/00
URBANIZED AREA: HEMET
APPORTIONMENT $814,596
CARRYOVER FUNDS: $74,492
TRANSFER FUNDS: $0
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $889,088
RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY $889,088
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS:
TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATE
AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT
(1) RTA Capitalized Purchased Transp. $26,162,000 $889,088 C STATE
JULY 1, 1999 TO JUNE 30, 2000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED
$26,162,000 $889,088
BALANCE AVAILABLE $0
APPROVED BY RCTC:
AMENDMENT TO AGENDA ITEM #7
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 1999/00
URBANIZED AREA: PALM SPRINGS
APPORTIONMENT: $972,625
CARRYOVER FUNDS: $1,935
TRANSFER FUNDS: $0
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $974,560
RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY $974,560
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS:
TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATE
AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT
(1) SUNLINE—OPERATING ASSISTANCE $12,455,000 $306,000 0 STATE
JULY 1, 1999 TO JUNE 30, 2000
(2) SUNLINE—LEASE/PURCHASE $650,000 $520,000 C STATE
REPLACEMENT TRANSIT COACHES
(3) SUNLINE-- 6 Replace. Paratransit Veh. $330,000 $148,560 C STATE
TOTAL PROGRAMMED
$13,435,000 $974,560
BALANCE AVAILABLE , $0
APPROVED BY RCTC:
JR: 6/21/99
AMENDMENT TO AGENDA ITEM #7
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 1999100
URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/COACHELLA
APPORTIONMENT: $616,460
CARRYOVER FUNDS: $980
TRANSFER FUNDS: $0
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $617,440
RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY $617,440
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS:
TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATE
AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT
(1) SUNLINE—Preventative Maintenance $12,455,000 $240,000 0/C STATE
JULY 1, 1999 TO JUNE 30, 2000
(2) SUNLINE-- Bus Replacement $300,000 $262,000 C STATE
(3) SUNLINE-- 6 Replace. Paratransit Veh $330,000 $115,440 C STATE
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $13,085,000 $617,440
BALANCE AVAILABLE $0
APPROVED BY RCTC:.
JR: 6/21/99
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 1999/00
URBANIZED AREA:
APPORTIONMENT:
CARRYOVER FUNDS:
TRANSFER FUNDS:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE
RECIPIENTS:
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS:
PALM SPRINGS
$972,625
$1,935
$0
$974,560
TOTAL
AMOUNT
SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS
$958,000
FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATE
SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT
(1) SUNLINE--OPERATING ASSISTANCE $12,455,000
JULY 1, 1999 TO JUNE 30, 2000
(2) SUNLINE--LEASE/PURCHASE $650,000
1EPLACEMENT TRANSIT COACHES
(3) SUNLINE-- 6 Replace. Paratransit Veh. $330,000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED
BALANCE AVAILABLE
APPROVED BY RCTC: July 14, 1999
$306,000 0
$520,000 C
$132,000 C
$13,435,000 $958,000
$16,560
STATE
STATE
STATE
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 1999/00
URBANIZED AREA:
APPORTIONMENT:
CARRYOVER FUNDS:
TRANSFER FUNDS:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:
RECIPIENTS:
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS:
(1) SUNLINE--Preventative Maintenance
JULY 1, 1999 TO JUNE 30, 2000
(2) SUNLINE-- Bus Replacement
(3) SUNLINE-- 6 Replace. Paratransit Veh.
TOTAL PROGRAMMED
BALANCE AVAILABLE
APPROVED BY RCTC: July 14, 1999
JR: 6/21/99
INDIO/COACHELLA
$616,460
$980
$0
$617,440
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$12,455,000
$300,000
$330,000
$13,085,000
$262,000
$132,000
$634,000
($16,560)
SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS
$634,000
FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATE
SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT
$240,000 0/C STATE
C STATE
C STATE
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Director of Plans & Programs
SUBJECT:
FY 2000 FTA Section 5311 Rural Transportation Program
The Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance Program form the Federal Transit
Administration, formerly known as Section 18, provides federal operating assistance
funds for rural transit operators. These funds are administered by Caltrans and the
majority of the funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula.
The remaining funds, if sufficient to justify a call for projects, are awarded in a
statewide discretionary program by Caltrans for rural capital projects and intercity bus
programs. Transit operators in counties where formula funds are fully programmed
must submit projects for discretionary funding to Caltrans. In order for grants to be
approved, the Commission must develop and approve a Program of Projects.
The attached program was prepared using the FY 1998-99 funding level for
operations. As with the Section 5307 program (Section 9), the actual apportionments
will not be known until after the start of our fiscal year. By programming at what may
be a higher level of funding, the operators will be able to apply for maximum funding
and avoid delays and additional work to amend programs and grants.
FORMULA PROGRAM:
The proposed program allocates the estimated $421,946 in formula funds for Riverside
County in FY 1999-2000 to RTA (61.7% or $ $260,341) and SunLine Transit Agency
(38.3% or $161,605). This is the formula that the Commission has used in past years
and is based on estimates of rural population. Each operator has planned for the use
of Section 5311 operating funds in their Short Range Transit Plan.
DISCRETIONARY FUNDS:
It is not known at this time whether Caltrans will release a call in FY 2000 for
discretionary rural transit funds. Currently, none of our transit operators have planned
for the use of Section 531 1 capital funds. However, should Caltrans release a call for
projects, all transit operators will be contacted about the availability of funds and if
they have a project, a request for an amendment to the program of projects will be
submitted for the Commission's consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission approve the
proposed FY 1999-2000 FTA Section 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FTA SECTION 5311 PROGRAM
FY 2000
FORMULA FUNDS *
COUNTY RTA SUNLINE
(100%) (61.7%) (38.3%)
Federal Funds Available: $421,946 $260,341 $161,605
Carryover: $45,206 $27,892 $17,314
Total Funds Available: $467,152 $288,233 $178,919
* Formula funds were programmed at the FY 1999 level for planning purposes. The
actual apportionment will be shared by the operators using the above percentages.
APPROVED BY RCTC: July 14, 1999
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
FY 1999-2000 Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Transit
In order for the public transit operators to claim Local Transportation Fund (LTF) money
for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the
transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2000-2006 Short
Range Transit Plan (SRTP).
The Riverside County SRTP for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside
and SunLine Transit Agency were reviewed and approved by the Commission at their
meeting on June 2, 1999, and the SRTP for Riverside Transit Agency and Commuter
Rail are scheduled for review and approval at the July 14, 1999 meeting. The only
Plan that has not been approved is the SRTP for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency.
City of Blythe staff have assured Commission staff that their Plan will be completed
within the next month. Therefore, no allocation is being made at this time to the
PVVTA.
At the February 10, 1999 Commission meeting, the FY 1999-2000 Local
Transportation Funds were apportioned to the three apportionment areas: Western
Riverside, Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley area. The apportionments for
the three areas were $28,715,811; $7,531,772, and $678,942, respectively. In
addition, any apportioned but unclaimed funds in the Western County area will also be
available for transit services.
The FY 2000 LTF allocations for the transit operators are consistent with the approved
SRTP, and the funds allocated are explicitly for the projects as stated in the approved
Plans. The allocation for Metrolink also includes the RCTC Operating and Support
costs contained in the RCTC budget approved by the Commission at its June 2, 1999
meeting.
Carry-over funds used in these calculations are preliminary estimates and may change.
Any modifications in fare box revenue, federal grants, Measure A funding, or carry-
over funds may require the operator(s) to revise their services to operate within the
LTF funding limitations.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
Source of Funds
Transportation Development Act, Local
Transportation Funds
€Yr f�l)
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Y
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
1999-
00
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend the Commission approve the FY
1999-2000 LTF Allocations for Transit in Riverside County as shown on the attached
table.
FY 1999-00 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT
TRANSIT OPER ATOR
BA NNING
BEAUMONT
CORONA
RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES"
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
M ETROLINK
WESTERN COUNTY TOTAL
SUNLINE TRA NSIT AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY TOTAL
PALO VERDE VALLEY T A.
PALO VERDE VALLEY TOTAL
COUNTY TOTAL
ESTIMATED ESTI MATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTI MATED RECO MMENDED
OPERATING CAPITAL TOTAL CARRYOVER NON LTF 1 LTF TRANSIT
COSTS COSTS COSTS FUNDS REVENUES I ALLOCATION
$577,000 $9,000 $586,000 $17,327 $123,0001 $445,673
$600,000 $307,000 $907,000 $0 $205,000 $702,000
$651,000 $30,000 $681,000 $29,067 $155,600 $496,333
$1,600,387 $150,000 $1,750,387 $150,000 $352,232 $1,248,155
$26,162,141 $18,061,000 $44,223,141 $0 $24,088,3411 $20,134,800
$4,437,500 $314,600 $4,752,100 $323,133 $0 $4,428,967
$34,028,028 $18,871,600 $52,899,628 $519,527 $24,924,173 $27,455,928
$12,155,000 $2,725,000 $14,880,000 $602,000 $6,746,000
$12,155,000 $2,725,000 $14,880,000 $602,000
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$7,532,000
$6,746,000 $7,532,000
$0
$46,183,028 $21,596,600 $67,779,628 $1,121,527 $31,670,173'
` Includes $100,000 fo r Transportation Terminal fun ded throu gh STA funds.
JR: 06/22/99
$0
$0
$34,987,928
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans and Program Committee
FROM:
Tanya L. Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Results
At its May 12, 1999 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to enter into a contract
with Strategic Consulting &' Research (SCR) to perform a study to evaluate the
effectiveness of RCTC's Commuter Assistance Programs known as Advantage
Rideshare and Club Ride. Because RCTC has managed the San Bernardino Associated
Governments' Commuter Assistance Program since its inception in 1993, SANBAG's
Commuter Assistance Program was also evaluated.
The study looked at the following: 1) the length of time an incentive participant
continued to rideshare after the initial three month period; 2) the importance the
incentive was in motivating the participant to begin ridesharing; 3) the number of days
per week the participant continued to rideshare; 4) if no longer ridesharing, what
factors caused the participant to stop; 5) the types of improvements, if any,
participants and employers suggest; 6) the reasons employers chose and/or chose not
to participant in the programs; 7) the impact the programs have had on a employer's
trip reduction plan; and 8) a rating of the performance of the consulting program staff.
Due to the short time frame for this study, (approximately 5 weeks from start to finish)
this is a "placeholder" agenda item. Staff from SCR will make a full presentation of
its findings at the Plans and Program Committee and provide a written report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend the Commission 1) receive and
file the evaluation study, 2) direct staff to use results from the study to write the RFP
for managing the Commuter Assistance Program in future years.
vvUUll
AGENDA ITEM 11
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Steve DeBaun, RCTC Legal Counsel
Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
1999 Revisions to Local Guidelines to Implementing the California
Environmental Quality and Adoption of Resolution No. 99-007, "A
Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission
Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act "
There were a number of substantial changes made to the California Environmental
Quality Act. These changes were noted in the attached memorandum from Legal
Counsel and were incorporated in the proposed amendment to the Commission's local
guidelines for implementing CEQA.
For the benefit of the Commissioners, the following is a brief summary as to what
CEQA is, its goal and purpose, and the local agencies' responsibilities to comply with
CEQA.
The basic goal of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to develop and
maintain a high quality environment now and in the future, while the specific goals of
CEQA are for California's public agencies to: 1) Identify the significant environmental
effects of their actions; and, either 2) Avoid those significant environmental effects,
where feasible; or 3) Mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible.
CEQA applies to "projects" proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State
and local government agencies. " Projects" are defined as those activities which have
the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and may include the
enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the
approval of tentative subdivision maps. Where a project requires approvals from more
than one public agency, CEQA requires one of these public agencies to serve as the
"lead agency." A lead agency must complete the environmental review process
required by CEQA. The most basic steps of the environmental review process are:
Determine if the activity is a "project" subject to CEQA;
Determine if the "project" is exempt from CEQA;
Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the
project and determine whether the identified impacts are"significant".
�� a
trvUdi
Based on its findings of "significance", the lead agency prepares one of
the following environmental review documents:
- Negative Declaration if it finds no "significant" impacts.
— Mitigated Negative Declaration if it finds "significant" impacts but
revises the project to avoid or mitigate those significant impacts;
- Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if it finds "significant" impacts.
While there is no ironclad definition of "significance", the State CEQA guidelines
provide criteria to lead agencies in determining whether a project may have significant
effects in Article 5. The purpose of the EIR is to provide State and local agencies and
the general public with detailed information on the potentially significant environmental
effects which a proposed project is likely to have and to list ways which the significant
environmental effects may be minimized and indicate alternates to the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee recommend that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-007,
"A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending and
Adopting Local Guidelines For Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act
(Pub. Resources Code § §2100 Et Seq.)."
nk
Attachments
CvtdVvr..
RESOLUTION NO. 99-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(PUB. RESOURCES CODE §§2100 ET SEQ.)
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has amended the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §§2100 et seq.) And the State CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 14, § § 15000 et seq.) And the California courts
have interpreted specific provisions of CEQA.
WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires all public agencies to adopt
objectives, criteria and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects
undertaken or approved by such public agencies, and the preparation, if required, of
environmental impact reports in connection with that evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission").
must revise its local guidelines for implementing CEQA to make them consistent with
the current provisions and interpretation of CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby
resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The Commission adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999 Revision)," a copy of which is on file at the
offices of the Commission and is available for inspection by the public.
SECTION 2. All prior actions of the Commission enacting earlier guidelines are
hereby repealed.
ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 1999.
Jack van Haaster, Chairman
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
Naty Kopenhaver
Clerk of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
Attachment 2
June 2, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
RE: UPDATES TO LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA")
INTRODUCTION
We have prepared your 1999 edition of the "Local Guidelines for Implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act" ("Local Guidelines"). The 1999 edition is enclosed
and can also be made available on diskette for your convenience. As we mentioned in our
previous memorandum, dated March 15, 1999, CEQA has undergone significant changes in the
past year. Your Local Guidelines reflect these changes including the significant changes to the
State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Local Guidelines are tailored to your specific needs and
contain important information you are not likely to find in the current or future edition of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
This memorandum discusses some, but not all, of the changes reflected in the 1999
edition of the Local Guidelines. We believe the changes discussed herein are necessary for proper
CEQA compliance and would beof interest to you. We have omitted mentioning those which deal
with technical legal points or procedures that are not likely to impact you. However, if you are
interested in a particular case or statute we have not addressed, we would be happy to discuss it
with you, or provide you with a short summary.
RVPUB NGS\514540
OLJIIUi%
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST Si KRIEGER LLP
Your Local Guidelines are intended to supply you with a road map for assessing
and analyzing the environmental implications of a project prior to approval. We still recommend
that you consult with legal counsel when you have specific questions on major, controversial, or
unusual CEQA projects.
REVISIONS TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
The California Resources Agency adopted a substantial number of revisions to the
State CEQA Guidelines which became effective October 26, 1998. These changes are reflected in
a number of provisions in your Local Guidelines. The more significant changes are as follows:
A. Public Participation Through the Internet
The State CEQA Guidelines provide that the Commission should encourage wide
public involvement, formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to
environmental issues related to the Commission's activities. Such involvement should include,
whenever possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the
Internet on a web site maintained or utilized by the Commission.
The posting of notices on the Internet is mentioned in a number of Sections of the
Local Guidelines including Section 3.05 (Notice of Exemption), Section 6.13 (Notice of
Determination for a Negative Declaration), Section 7.17 (Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR),
and Section 7.22 (notices of public hearings).
B. Reducing Dela-v and Paperwork
Section 1.04 of your Local Guidelines has been revised in accordance with changes
to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(c). These changes reflect the goal that environmental
RVPUB\NGS\514540
—2—
u
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
document preparation and review should be coordinated in a timely fashion with existing
planning, review, and project approval processes. These procedures, to the maximum extent
feasible, are to run concurrently, not consecutively.
C. Activities Considered to be a "Pro ect"
Two provisions have been added to Section 3.01 of the Local Guidelines regarding
what will be considered a "project" subject to CEQA. In accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), Section 3.01(e) of the Local Guidelines provides that a project
will not include organizational or administrative activities which are political or which do not
result in physical changes in the environment (such as the reorganization of a school district or
detachment of park land). Section 3.01(0 reiterates the existing policy, as emphasized in the new
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), that an activity will not be considered a project
where it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment.
D. Emergency Protects Exempt from CEQA
Section 3.08 has been amended to include the substantial additions made to the
definition of emergency projects exempt from CEQA compliance. These changes were made to
Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Emergency projects will include projects for
removal or alteration of an historical resource when that resource represents an imminent threat to
the public. Emergency projects will also include activities to repair an existing highway damaged
by fire, flood, storm, earthquake or landslide provided that the project is within the existing right
of way of that highway and is initiated within one year of when the damage occurred.
RVPUB\NGS\514540
—3-
0L,vUO 7
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
E. Categorical Exemptions
Among the changes made to Section 3.16 of your Local Guidelines is the addition
of language to Class 25 of the Categorical Exemptions. These changes are the result of revisions
to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15325. This additional language provides that Class 25
activities include transfers of land in order to preserve habitat and historical resources. Examples
include the sale or transfer of land in order to preserve plant or animal habitats.
Other new classes of Categorical Exemptions include a Class 30 for minor cleanup
actions costing $1 million dollars or less to prevent or mitigate hazardous waste (State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15330), a new Class 31 for maintenance and repair of historical resources
(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331), and a new Class 32 for projects characterized as in -fill
development (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332).
F. Time Limitations
Section 4.03 of your Local Guidelines reflects a change to the time limitations for
completion and adoption of a Negative Declaration. Section 15107 of the State CEQA
Guidelines requires that for private projects involving the issuance of a lease, permit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement, the Negative Declaration must be completed, as well as
approved; within 180 days from the date when the application is accepted as complete.
G. Evaluatin_g Significant Environmental Effects
Substantial additions have been made to Section 5.07 of your Local Guidelines
which deals with evaluation of the environmental significance of effects. These additions are the
result of amendments to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(I) and are reflected in revisions to
Section 5.07 subsections (f), (g), and (h).
RVPUB\NGS\514540
—4—
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
For example, the Commission may determine that a project's incremental
contribution to a cumulative effect is not "cumulatively considerable," as defined in the Local
Guidelines, if the project will comply with requirements in a previously approved plan or
mitigation program which will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (eg., water
quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan).
Section 5.07(h) provides that a change in the environment is not a significant effect
if the change complies with a "standard." A "standard" may be used if: (I) it is found in a statute,
ordinance, or regulation, (ii) it was adopted for the purpose of environmental protection, (iii) it
was adopted by a public agency through a public review process, (iv) it governs the same
environmental effect which the change in the environment is impacting, and (v) it governs the
jurisdiction where the project is located.
The Commission is encouraged to develop its own "thresholds of significance" to
be used in determining the significance of environmental effects. This authority was created by
the new Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
H. Evaluating Impacts on Archeological and Historical Resources
Another major change to the State CEQA Guidelines was the addition of a new
Section 15064.5 which provides guidelines for evaluating archeological and historical resources.
These additions are included in Sections 5.10 and 5.11 of your Local Guidelines. As explained in
Section 5.10, resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources are historical
resources for the purposes of CEQA. In addition, resources listed in a local register are presumed
to be significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise.
RVPUB\NGS\514540
—5—
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
The new provisions in the Local Guidelines provide that a Lead Agency is
authorized to determine that a resource may be an historical resource even if it is not listed in the
California Register or in a local register. As a result, any object, building or site the Commission
determines to be historically. significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, educational
or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource.
In regard to archeological sites, Section 5.11 explains that the Commission shall
first determine whether the site is an historical resource and if not, then it must be determined
whether the site meets the definition of an unique archeological resource as set forth in the Public
Resources Code.
I. Recirculation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
Section 15073.5 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines to provide substantial
detail to the procedures for recirculating Negative Declarations. These procedures are located in
Section 6.12 of your Local Guidelines. Section 6.12 states that a Negative Declaration must be
recirculated when the document must be substantially revised after the public review period but
prior to its adoption. A "substantial revision".is defined as a new and avoidable significant effect
for which mitigation measures or project revisions must be added.
J. Consultation with Other Agencies of EIR
Section 7.07 of your Local Guidelines reflects additions to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15154 which deals with the use of an Airport Land Use Plan during EIR preparation.
K. Form and Content of EZR
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 was revised to include further detail
regarding what should be contained in an EIR. As a result, Section 7.12(d) of the Local
RVPUB\NGS\514540
0 ::;; J t , i
-6-
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
Guidelines provides that a description of a project's physical environmental conditions at the time
the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of Preparation is published, at the time
environmental analysis begins, will be considered the environmental setting which will normally
constitute the baseline physical conditions by which the Lead Agency determines whether an
impact is significant.
L. Analysis air Cumulative Impacts
Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines has been substantially revised in
regard to the appropriate discussion of cumulative impacts in an EIR. As a result, substantial
revisions have been made to Section 7.13 of the Local Guidelines. For example, Section 7.13(a)
explains that a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the
combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related
impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project
evaluated in the EIR. An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant
cumulative impact is de minimis and thus is not significant. A de minimis contribution means that
the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed project is
implemented.
M. Analysis of Mitigation Measures
A new Section 15126.4 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines in regard to
consideration of mitigation measures. These new provisions are reflected in Section 7.14 of your
Local Guidelines.
RVPUB\NGS\514540
—7—
l1 ..
v �t 1
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
N Analysis of Alternatives in an EIR
A new Section 15126.6 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines in regard to the
consideration and discussion of project alternatives. As a result, Section 7.15 of the Local
Guidelines was revised. For example, Section 7.15 now explains that an EIR need not consider
every conceivable alternative. Rather, it must consider.a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. The Commission 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. Substantial revisions have
also been made to the discussion of the "No Project" alternative in the Local Guidelines.
0. Recirculation When New Information is Added to an EIR
Changes have been made to Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines in
regard to the particular set of comments the Commission must respond to when the EIR is
substantially revised and then recirculated. When the EIR is substantially revised and the entire
EIR is recirculated, the Commission may require that reviewers submit new comments and the
Commission need not respond to comments received during the earlier circulation period. When
the EIR is revised only in part and the Commission is recirculating only the revised portions, the
Commission may require that reviewers limit their comments to the revised portions.
P. Findings Required for Facilities Which hMcw Emit Hazardous Air Emissions Near Schools
The new Section 15186 in the State CEQA Guidelines provides special
requirements for certain school projects, as well as certain projects near schools, in order to
ensure that potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials will be
RVPUBWGS\514540
—8-
0v lit% 1 �..
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
carefully examined and disclosed. These requirements are addressed by Section 7.29 of your
Local Guidelines.
Q. Tiered EIR
Section 8.05 of the Local Guidelines, dealing with use of a Tiered EIR, has been
revised along the lines of the revisions made to Section 15152 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
1997-1998 CEOA LEGISLATION
During the 1997-1998 Regular Session - Statutes of 1998, the Legislature enacted
certain bills involving the Public Resources Code and other statutes that have an impact on CEQA
compliance. However the following bill is the only legislation which warranted an amendment to
the Local Guidelines.
SB 2005 Kopp Relating to the Permit Streamlining Act
This legislation makes certain revisions to the Permit Streamlining Act. For
instance, Section 65950 of the Government Code is amended to provide that any agency that is
the Lead Agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove the project within
whichever of the following periods is applicable: (1) 180 days from the date of certification of an
EIR, (2) 60 days from the date of adoption of a Negative Declaration, or (3) 60 days from the
determination that a project is exempt from CEQA.
This legislation also amends Government Code Section 65951 to provide that in
the event a combined EIR-EIS is being prepared on a development project, a Lead Agency shall
approve or disapprove the project within 90 days after the combined EIR-EIS has been completed
and adopted.
RVPUB\NGS\514540
—9--
0 1,s; r 3
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
SB 2005 also amended Government Code Section 65957 to provide that the time
limits established by Government Code Sections 65950, 65950.1, 65951, and 65952 may be
extended once upon mutual written agreement of the project applicant and the Lead Agency for a
period not to exceed 90 days. No other extension of these time limits, either by the project
applicant or the Lead Agency, shall be permitted.
As a result of these changes to the Permit Streamlining Act, Section 4.05 of the
Local Guidelines has been amended to include a reference to the requirements of Government
Code Section 65957 in regard to waivers of time periods.
During the 1997-1998 Regular Session - Statutes of 1997, the State Legislature
enacted the following legislation which made certain changes to the authority of Lead and
Responsible Agencies to request a meeting with each other during preparation of an EIR.
AB 175 Torlakson Relating to Consultation with Other Agencies
This legislation amended Public Resources Code section 21153(b) to provide that
in the case of a project undertaken by a public agency, that agency may provide for early
consultation to identify the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant
effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. At the request of said agency, the State Office of
Planning and Research shall ensure that each Responsible Agency, and any agency that has
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, is notified regarding early consultation. This
responsibility of the Office of Planning and Research is reflected in Section 5.02 of the Local
Guidelines.
RVPUB\NGS\514540
—10—
li:/Li 1 `:
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CASE LAW REFLECTED N 1999 EDITION OF THE LOCAL GUIDELINES
Provisions were added to the State CEQA Guidelines to reflect requirements of
the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and
Dolan V. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Taken together, these cases provide the standard
by which a public agency may impose conditions on new development. This standard requires a
"nexus" between the legitimate governmental interest of the agency and the condition being
imposed by the agency on a development or an applicant. It must then be determined whether
there is a "rough proportionality" between the condition being imposed by the agency and the
burden resulting from the development. Although no mathematical calculation is required, the
agency must make some sort of individualized determination that the condition being imposed is
related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.
This standard has been incorporated into provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines
which authorize an agency to impose conditions on applicants. The typical condition involves
imposition of mitigation measures. Consequently, certain provisions of the Local Guidelines have
been revised to include a reference to this standard. For example, Section 6.08(e) provides that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration shall contain feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen
or avoid potentially significant effects, which must be fully enforceable through permit conditions
or other measures. Such conditions and measures must be consistent with the "nexus" and "rough
proportionality" standards. Sections 7.14 and 7.31 provide that mitigation measures in an EIR
must be consistent with the standards set forth in Nollan and Dolan.
RVPUB\NGS\514540
—11-
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST 5, KRIEGER LLP
CONCLUSION
Please let us know if you have any questions about the changes in CEQA law and
the incorporation of such changes in your Local Guidelines. We recommend that you keep this
memorandum filed with your 1999 Local Guidelines for future reference.
RVPUB \NGS \5 14540
—12-
Attachment 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(1999)
01999 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STAFF SUMMARY OF THE CEQA EVALUATION PROCESS
1 GENERAL PROVISIONS, PURPOSE AND POLICY 1
1.01 General Provisions 1
1.02 Purpose 1
1.03 Applicability 2
1.04 Reducing Delay and Paperwork 3
1.05 Compliance With State Law 4
1.06 Terminology 4
1.07 Partial Invalidity
4
2. LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES 5
2.01 Lead Agency Principle 5
2.02 Selection of Lead Agency 5
2.03 Duties of a Lead Agency 5
2.04 Consultation Requirements for Development Projects 7
2.05 Responsible Agency Principle 8
2.06 Duties of a Responsible Agency 8
2.07 Response to Notice of Preparation by Responsible Agencies .. 8
2.08 Use of Final EIR or Negative Declaration by Responsible Agencies 9
2.09 Shift in Lead Agency Responsibilities 9
3. ACTIVITIES EXEMPT FROM CEQA 11
3.01 Actions Subject to CEQA 11
3.02 Ministerial Projects 11
3.03 Exemptions in General 12
3.04 Preliminary Exemption Assessment 12
3.05 Notice of Exemption 12
3.06 Disapproved Projects 13
3.07 No Possibility of Significant Effect 13
3.08 Emergency Projects 13
3.09 Feasibility and Planning Studies 14
3.10 Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges 14
3.11 Subsurface Pipelines Within a Public Right -of -Way 15
3.12 Affordable Housing Projects Up to 45 Units 15
3.13 Minor Alterations to Fluoridate Water Utilities 15
3.14 Ballot Measures 15
3.15 Transit Agency Responses to Revenue Shortfalls. 15
3.16 Other Specific Exemptions 16
3.17 Categorical Exemptions 17
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -1- c1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0'.l
w, n
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT E VONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TO:
Project Title
Project Location - Specific
Project Location - City
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:
Project Location - County
The Significant Effects on the Environment, if any, Anticipated as a Result of the Project:
Lead Agency
Date when project noticed to public:
Address where copy of the EIR and all documents referenced in the EIR are available:
Review Period
Date, Time and Location of Public Hearing, if any:
Contact Person
Division
Area Code - Telephone - Extension
[To be published, posted or mailed to contiguous owners/occupants, and sent to the last
known name and address of organizations and individuals who have previously requested it.]
RCTC/1 9effLivmf1 j1339
FORM "K"
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Table of Contents
6.13 Notice of Determination on a Project for which a Proposed Negative
or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been Approved 46
6.14 Addendum to Negative Declaration 47
6.15 Subsequent Negative Declaration 48
6.16 Private Project Costs 49
6.17 Filing Fees for Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources 49
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 52
7.01 Decision to Prepare an EIR 52
7.02 Contracting for Preparation of E1Rs 52
7.03 Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR 52
7.04 Preparation of Draft EIR 53
7.05 Consultation with Other Agencies and Persons 53
7.06 Early Consultation on Projects Involving Permit Issuance 55
7.07 Airport Land Use Plan 55
7.08 General Aspects of an EIR 55
7.09 Use of Registered Consultants in Preparing EIRs 56
7.10 Incorporation by Reference 56
7.11 Standards for Adequacy of an EIR . 57
7.12 Form and Content of EIR 57
7.13 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts. 59
7.14 Analysis of Mitigation Measures. 61
7.15 Analysis of Alternatives in an EIR. 63
7.16 Analysis of Future Expansion 66
7.17 Notice of Completion of Draft EIR 66
7.18 Submission of Draft EIR to State Clearinghouse 68
7.19 Special Notice Requirements for Waste and Fuel Burning Projects 68
7.20 .Review of Draft EIR by Other Agencies and Persons 68
7.21 Time for Review of Draft EIR; Failure to Comment . . . 69
7.22 Public Hearing on Draft EIR 70
7.23 Response to Comments on Draft EIR 70
7.24 Preparation and Contents of Final EIR 71
7.25 Recirculation When New Information is Added to EIR 71
7.26 Certification of Final EIR 73
7.27 Consideration of EIR Before Approval or Disapproval of Project 73
7.28 Findings 74
7.29 Special Findings Required for Facilities Which May Emit Hazardous
Air Emissions Near Schools 75
7.30 Statement of Overriding Considerations 76
7.31 Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Program for EIR 77
7.32 Notice of Determination 79
7.33 Disposition of a Final EIR 80
7.34 Private Project Costs 80
7.35 Filing Fees for Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources 81
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -111- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Table of Contents
8. TYPES OF FIRS 83
8.01 Project EIR 83
8.02 Subsequent EIR 83
8.03 Supplement to an EIR 84
8.04 Addendum to an EIR 85
8.05 Tiered EIR. 85
8.06 Staged EIR 87
8.07 Program EIR 87
8.08 Use of a Program EIR With Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations 88
8.09 Use of an EIR from an Earlier Project 88
8.10 Master EIR 88
8.11 Focused EIR 89
9. DEFINITIONS 92
9.01 "Applicant" 92
9.02 "Approval" 92
9.03 "CEQA" 92
9.04 "Categorical Exemption" 92
9.05 "Clerk" 92
9.06 "Commission" 92
9.07 "Cumulative Impacts" 93
9.08 "Cumulatively Considerable" 93
9.09 "Decision Making Body" 93
9.10 "Development Project" 93
9.11 "Discretionary Project" 93
9.12 "Draft EIR" 93
9.13 "Emergency" 93
9.14 "Environment" 94
9.15 "EIR" 94
9.16 "Feasible" 94
9.17 "Final EIR" 94
9.18 "Historical Resources" 94
9.19 "Initial Study" 95
9.20 "Jurisdiction by Law" 95
9.21 "Land Disposal Facility" 95
9.22 "Large Treatment Facility" 95
9.23 "Lead Agency" 95
9.24 "Mitigated Negative Declaration" 96
9.25 "Mitigation" ..96
9.26 "Negative Declaration" 96
9.27 "Notice of Completion" 96
9.28 "Notice of Determination" 96
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -iv- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
•
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Table of Contents
9.29 "Notice of Exemption" 96
9.30 "Notice of Preparation" 97
9.31 "Offsite Facility" 97
9.32 "Person" ..97
9.33 "Private Project" 97
9.34 "Probable Future Projects" 97
9.35 "Project" 97
9.36 "Responsible Agency" 98
9.37 "Significant Effect" 98
9.38 "Staff' . 98
9.39 "Standard" .98
9.40 "State Guidelines" 99
9.41 "Substantial Evidence" 99
9.42 "Tiering" 99
9.43 "Transportation Facilities" 99
9.44 "Trustee Agency" 100
9.45 "Zoning Approval" 100
10. FORMS 101
Preliminary Exemption Assessment Form A
Notice of Exemption Form B
Environmental Impact Assessment Form C
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/
Mitigated Negative Declaration Form D
Negative Declaration Form E
Notice of Determination Form F
Notice of Preparation Form G
Notice of Completion Form H
Environmental Information Form Form I
Environmental Checklist Form Form J
Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report . Form K
Certificate of Fee Exemption Form L
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _V_ °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process
STAFF SUMMARY OF THE CEQA EVALUATION PROCESS
Excerpted from these Local
Guidelines for Implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act
GUIDELINES
ACTION
SECTION REFERENCE
(A) Staff determines whether the Commission is Lead or 2.01, 2.02, 2.05, 2.09
Responsible Agency for the proposed activity.
(1) As a Lead Agency, the Commission shall 2.03, 2.04
decide whether a Negative Declaration,
Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR
will be required and shall prepare and
consider the document before making its
decision on whether and how to approve the
proposed activity.
(2) As a Responsible Agency, the Commission 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08
shall provide data as requested by the Lead
Agency, consider the documents prepared by
the Lead Agency and reach its own conclu-
sion on whether and how to approve the
proposed activity.
(B) Staff examines proposed activity ("project") to 3.03
determine whether it is exempt.
(1) The project can be exempt for any of the
following reasons:
(a) The activity does not come within 3.01
the legal defmition of "project."
(b) It is a disapproved project. 3.06
(c) It can be seen with certainty that 3.07
there is no possibility that the activity
may have a significant effect on the
environment.
(d) It is a ministerial, not discretionary, 3.02
action taken by the Commission.
RCTC/RVPUB/312884 -Vi- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
J JL)
U)
Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process
(e) It is covered by one of the 3.08, 3.09, 3.10, 3.11,
exemptions in the CEQA statute. 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15
(f) It is covered by one of the 3.16
exemptions in the State Guidelines.
(2) If the activity is determined to be exempt, 3.04, 3.05
Staff completes and files internally a
Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form
"A"). A Notice of Exemption (Form "B")
should be filed with the Clerk following
Commission approval of a project. (Attach
Form "A", too.) The Clerk must post the
Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of its
receipt, and the Notice must remain posted
for thirty (30) days. A thirty-five (35) day
statute of limitations for legal challenges
begins to run only if and when the Notice of
Exemption is filed with the Clerk. If no
Notice is filed, the statute of limitations for
legal challenges is one hundred eighty (180)
days.
(3) If the activity is not exempt, Staff proceeds
with its own environmental evaluation,
beginning with the preparation of an Initial
Study. (See Section (C) below.)
(4) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of 3.05
Exemption prior to the date on which the
Commission determines the activity is
exempt, the copy must be mailed, first class
postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the
Commission's determination. If such a
request is made following the Commission's
determination, then the copy should be
mailed in the same manner as soon as
possible.
(C) Staff Preparation of an Initial Study. 5.01
(1) All Responsible and any Trustee Agencies 5.02
must be consulted in the preparation of the
Initial Study.
RCTC/RVPUB/312884
-Vii- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the'
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process
Staff prepares an Initial Study, including the 5.01, 5.03, 5.05, 5.06
Environmental Checklist Form (Form "J")
and all explanations as necessary.
Based on the results of the Initial Study, 5.12
Staff prepares an Environmental Impact (See also 5.03,5.07, 5.08,
Assessment (Form "C") for internal use 5.09, 5.10, 5 11)
only.
(a) If Staff concludes that the project
will not have a significant effect on
the environment, then it must
recommend that a Negative
Declaration be prepared.
(b) If Staff concludes that the project
could result in significant
environmental effects but that the
significant effects identified in the
Initial Study have been avoided or
mitigated to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur by
revisions in the project plans or
proposals made by or agreed to by
the applicant, then it must recom-
mend that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration be prepared.
(c) If Staff concludes that the project
could or may have a significant
effect on the environment, it must
recommend that an Environmental
Impact Report be prepared.
(D) Staff Preparation of a Negative Declaration or 6.01, 6.02
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
RCTC/RVPUB/312884 °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0 0 5
Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) _ CEQA Evaluation Process
(1) If Staff recommends preparation of a Nega- 6.01, 6.02, 6.04, 6.08
tive Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Staff must prepare a Draft
Negative Declaration (Form "E") (unsigned
but otherwise fully completed including a
statement of supporting reasons) and fill out
a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Form "'D"). For a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Staff must also attach to
Form "E" a description of mitigation
measures for each significant impact.
(2) Staff must then post a copy of the Notice of 6.05, 6.07
Intent, the Draft Negative Declaration/
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial
Study at the Commission office. The Notice
must also be posted in the office of the Clerk
of each County in which the project is
located within twenty-four hours (24) hours
of receipt by the Clerk, and must remain
posted for a minimum of twenty (20) days,
unless otherwise required by law to be
posted for thirty (30) days.
(3) At least twenty (20) days before the Board 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.07
of Directors' meeting, Staff must give
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Form "D") by mail to the last known names
and addresses of all individuals and organi-
zations who have previously requested such
notice and by at least one of the following:
(a) publishing once in a newspaper of
general circulation, or, if more than
one 'area will be affected, in the
newspaper of largest circulation from
among the newspapers of general
circulation in those areas;
(b) posting on and off site where the
project is to be located;
(c) mailing to owners and occupants of
contiguous property.
RCTC/RVPUB/312884
-1X- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Ol,iutJUO
Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process
A public review period at least as long as the
period of review by the State Clearinghouse
is required for Negative Declarations sent to
the State Clearinghouse.
(4) At the time noticed for the meeting, the 6.09, 6.10, 7.01
Board of Directors considers the matter.
Comments, if any, from the public and
Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies
which pertain to resources under their
authority and are received during the public
comment period, xnust be considered. If the
Board of Directors determines in light of the
whole record that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment, it
adopts the Negative Declaration/Mitigated
Negative Declaration. For a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the Commission must
also adopt a mitigation monitoring or
reporting program. In either case, the
Commission must specify the location and
custodian of the documents which constitute
the record of proceedings. (If the decision
making body finds, in light of the whole
record, that the project may have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment, it must order
the preparation of an EIR.)
MOTION: Move that this Board of
Directors fmds in light of the
whole record that the project
will not have a significant
effect on the environment,
the Negative Declara-
tion/Mitigated Negative
Declaration reflects the
independent judgment of the
Board of Directors, and that
the Negative Declaration/
Mitigated Negative Declara-
tion as proposed by Staff be
adopted.
RCTC/RVPUB/312884
-X- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Impiementing the Staff Summary of the
California Environmental Quality_Act (1999) CEQA Evaluanon Process
(5) The Board of Directors can act upon the pro- 6.11
ject after reviewing, considering, and
adopting the Negative Declaration/Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
MOTION: Move approval of the project,
and direct Staff to file and
post a Notice of Determina-
tion in accordance with the
Commission's Guidelines.
(6) Staff must file a Notice of Determination 6.13, 6.17
(Form "F") with the Clerk and also with the
Office of Planning and Research if the
project requires state agency approval within
five working days of approval. A fee of
$1,250 shall be paid at this time to the Clerk
for projects which will adversely affect
wildlife resources. (Refer to the Index at the
end of. this Staff Summary to determine
whether a handling or administrative fee is
also due.) The Notice must be posted in the
Clerk's office within twenty-four (24) hours
of receipt by the Clerk, and must remain
posted for a minimum of thirty (30) days.
(7) Staff simultaneously and conspicuously posts 6.13
Notice of Determination at the Commission
office.
(8) A thirty (30) day statute of limitations for 6.13
legal challenges usually begins to run only
after the Notice of Determination has been
filed with and posted by the Clerk (and with
the Office of Planning and Research if
approval by any State agency is involved).
RCTC/RVPUB/3 12884
-Xi- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for implementing the Staff Summary of the'
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process
(9) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of 6.13
Determination prior to the date on which the
Commission adopts the Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
the copy must be mailed, first class postage
prepaid, within five (5) days of the
Commission's determination. If such a
request is made following the Commission's
determination, then the copy should be
mailed in the same manner as soon as
possible.
RCTC/RVPUB/312884
-Xii- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
(E) Staff Preparation of an EIR. 7.01
(1) If an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") 7.03
is required, the Commission as Lead Agency
shall send a Notice of Preparation
(Form "G") to all Responsible and any
Trustee Agencies. Responsible and Trustee
Agencies must respond within thirty (30)
days. The Notice must be posted in the
office of the Clerk for each county in which
the project is located, within twenty-four
(24) hours of receipt by the Clerk, and must
remain posted for thirty (30) days.
(2) Staff shall commence preparation of a Draft 7.02, 7.04, 7.05, 7.06
EIR (staff may begin work on it immediately
without awaiting responses to the Notice of
Preparation). If a Draft EIR, EIR or
Focused EIR is prepared under a contract to
the Commission, the contract must be
executed within forty-five (45) days from the
date the Commission sends the Notice of
Preparation, unless an extension is mutually
agreed upon by the Commission and project
applicant. Early consultation ("scoping") is
advisable during the drafting of the EIR with
all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies
and interested individuals and organizations
of which staff is reasonably aware.
(3) Upon completion of the Draft EIR, Staff 7.17, 7.18
shall file a Notice of Completion
(Form "H") with the Office of Planning and
Research and give the required public Notice
inviting comment upon the Draft EIR
(Form "K") by mail to the last known names
and addresses of all individuals
and organizations who have previously
requested such notice and by at least one
of the following:
(a) publishing once in a newspaper of 7.17
general circulation, or, if more than
one area will be affected, in the
newspaper of largest circulation from
among the newspapers of general
circulation in those areas;
RCTC/RVPUB/312884
-Xiii- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
(5)
Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process.
(b) posting on and off site where the 7.17
project is to be located;
(c) mailing to owners and occupants of 7.17
contiguous property.
The Notice shall be posted in the Clerk's 7.17
office of each county in which the project is
located within twenty-four (24) hours of
receipt by the Clerk, and must remain posted
for a minimum of thirty (30) days. This
begins the comment period, which will be at
least thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days
depending on the project.
(4) The Board of Directors may at its discretion 7.22
conduct a public hearing on the Draft EIR
no sooner than fourteen (14) days after filing
of the Notice of Completion but before the
expiration of the comment period.
Comments on the Draft EIR are evaluated
by Staff, responses are compiled and a Final
EIR is prepared. At least ten (10)"days prior
to certifying a Final EIR, the. Commission
must provide a written response . to any
agency which has made comments on the
Draft ER.
7.23, 7.24
(6) If "significant" new information is added to 7.25
the ER or if the Draft HR is so inadequate
and conclusory that meaningful public
review and comment were precluded, notice
and consultation must be repeated.
RCTC/RVPUB/312884
-XiV- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the
California Environmental Quality Ac[ (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process
(7) Staff considers the Final EIR and makes a 7.26, 7.27, 7.28
recommendation to the Board of Directors
regarding whether the Final EIR is in order
and whether it has been completed in com-
pliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines
and the Commission's Guidelines. The
Final EIR recommendations are presented to
the -Board of Directors which shall certify
that the Final EIR is in order and has been
completed in compliance with CEQA, the
State Guidelines, and the Commission's
Guidelines, or refer it back to Staff for
further work. A mitigation monitoring or
reporting program must also be adopted.
MOTION: Move that this Board of
Directors fmds and certifies
that the Final EIR has been
completed in compliance with
the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State Guide-
lines, and the Commission's
local Guidelines, that it has
reviewed and considered the
information contained therein
in making its decision on the
project, and the Final EIR
reflects the independent
judgment of the Board of
Directors.
The Board of Directors must review and 7.27
consider the information in the EIR before
considering and approving the project.
Before the Board of Directors approves a
project, findings must be made as to whether
each significant effect identified in the EIR
will be mitigated and why alternatives which
could reduce environmental impacts were
rejected.
RCTC/RVPUB/312884
7.28, 7.29, 7.31
-XV-
01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process
(10) Before the Board of Directors approves a 7.28, 7.30, 7.31
project which allows significant effects to
occur without mitigating these effects to a
level of insignificance, it must make written
fmdings setting forth the overriding
considerations which led the Board of
Directors to forego full mitigation. The
location and custodian of the documents
which constitute the record of proceedings
shall be specified.
MOTION: Move approval of the project
for the following reasons:
[State in writing reasons to
support approval] and further
find that:
[Incorporate one or more
findings of overriding
considerations.]
(11) If the project is approved, the Board of 7.32
Directors directs Staff to prepare a Notice of
Determination (Form "F").
MOTION: Move approval and instruct
Staff to prepare and file a
Notice of Determination
thereon pursuant to the
Commission's Guidelines.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 12884
-XVi- °1999 Best Best & Krieger L.L.P
Local Guidelines for implementing the Staff Summary of the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process
(12) Staff must file a Notice of Determination 7.32, 7.33, 7.35
with the Clerk and also with the Office of
Planning and Research if the project requires
State approval within five (5) working days
of approval. The Clerk must post the Notice
within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. A
fee of $850 shall be paid at this time to the
Clerk for projects which will adversely
affect wildlife resources. (Refer to the
Index at the end of this Staff Summary to
determine whether a handling or
administrative fee is also due.) The Notice
shall be posted in the office of the Clerk for
thirty (30) days. If a Statement of Overrid-
ing Considerations is adopted, this must be
noted in the Notice of Determination.
(13) Staff simultaneously and conspicuously posts 7.32
Notice of Determination at the Commission
office.
(14) The thirty (30) day statute of limitations for 7.32
legal challenges usually begins to run only
after the Notice of Determination has been
filed with the Clerk (and with the Office of
Planning and Research if approval by any
State agency is involved).
(15) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of 7.32
Determination prior to the date on which the
Commission certifies the Final EIR, the
copy must be mailed, first class postage
prepaid, within five (5) days of the
Commission's determination. If such a
request is made following the Commission's
determination, then the copy should be
mailed in the same manner as soon as
possible.
RCTC/RVPUB/312884
-XVii- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
INDEX TO ENVIR ONMENTAL FILING BY COUNTY
County
Amador
El Dorado
DFG Handling Fee or
Administrati on Fee
$25.00 only when
DFG gets a fee.
$35.00, unless there is a de minimus
with a certificate of fee exemption.
Fresno
Humboldt
Department to Contact
C ounty Clerk
County Clerk
Phone number
209/223-6468
916/621-5490-0
$25.00 only when
DFG gets a fee .
$25.00 all situations.
County Clerk
County Clerk
209/488-3003
(Ask f or Maria)
707/445-7503
(Ask for Lindsey)
Address
Amador County Clerk's Office
Mailing: 108 Court Street
Physical: 45 Summit Street
Jackson, CA 95642
I El D orado County Clerk's Office
360 Fair Lane, Building B
Placerville, CA 95667
Fresno County Clerk's Office
Special Services Division
2221 Kern -
Fresno, CA 93721-2600
Imperial
$25.00 all situations.
County Clerk
619/339-4427
Inyo
Kern
$25. 00 all situations.
$40. 00 for Negative
Declaratiions, EIRs &
de minimus, but not
fo r exemptions.
Lake
$25.00 only when
DFG gets a fee.
County Clerk
County Clerk
619/878-0218
805/861-2961
Humboldt County Clerk's Office
825 Fifth Street, Room 235
Eureka, CA 95501
Imperial County Clerk's Office
939 Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243
Inyo County Clerk's Office
P. O. Drawer F
[or]
168 N. Edwards
Independence, CA 93526
Susie Davis
Kern County Clerk's Office
1115 Turxtun, 5th Flr .
Bakersfield, CA 93301
County Clerk
707/263-2371
Lake County Clerk's Office
255 North Forbes Street
Lakep ort, CA 95453
RCTC/RVPUB/3 12884 -XV iii -
°1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
County
Los Angeles
Mendocino
Modo c
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
DF G Handling Fee or
Administration Fee
$25 .00 all situations .
Department to Co ntact
$25 .00 all situations.
$25. 00 all situations.
$25.00 only when
DFG gets a fee.
$35. 00 all situations.
$25.00 all situations.
County Clerk
County Clerk
County Clerk
County Clerk
County Clerk
County Clerk
County Recorder
Phone number
310/462-2059
707/463-4371
(Ask for Geraldine)
916/233-6200
(Ask for Maxine)
619-932-5241
408/755-5450
Address
Environmental Impact Clerk
Clerk of the Board
County of L os Angeles
500 W. Temple Street, Rm 383
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Mendocino County Clerk's Office
P.O . Box 148
[ or]
100 North State Street, Room
Ukiah, CA 95482
Modoc County Clerk's Office
P .O. Box 131
[or]
204 South Court Street
Alturas, CA 96101
M ono County Clerk's Office
P. O. Box 537
[ or]
Court House, Main Street
Brid:esort, CA 93517
707/253-4693
(Ask for Doris)
916/265-1221
(Ask for Trisha)
Monterey County Clerk's Office
County Court House
North Wing, Room 318
Sali nas, CA 93902
Napa County Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 298
[or]
900 Coombs Street
Napa, CA 94559
Nevada County Recorder's Office
P.O. Box 6232
[or]
950 Maidu Avenue
Nevada Cit CA 95959
li /RVPUB/312884
-XL_
°1999 Best Best & Kriege. _...P
County
Orange
Riverside
Sacramento
San Bernardino
DFG Handling Fee or
Administration Fee
$25 .00 all situations.
$78.00 all situations.
$25.00 f or Negative
Declarations & EIRs only .
$30. 00 all situations.
Department to Contact
County Clerk
County Clerk
County Clerk
Clerk of the Board
Phone number
714/834-3006
Address
EIR Clerk
Orange C ounty Clerk/Recorder
12 Civic Center Plaza, Rm 211
Santa Ana, CA 92701
909/486-7077
916/440-6334-0 or
800/313-7133-0
(Ask for Carl)
909/387-3843
San Diego
San Luis Obisbo
$25. 00 for Negativ e
Declarations & E1Rs only.
$25. 00 all situations.
County Clerk
County Clerk
RCTC/RVPUB/3 12884
-XX-
619/531-6221
(Ask for Mita)
805/781-5088
County Clerk's Office
Riverside County
P .O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92502-0751
Sacramento County Clerk's Office
P. O. Box 839
]or]
600 8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95812-0839
Clerk of the Board
County of San Bernardino
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415
Recorder/County Clerk
County of San Diego
P. O. Box 1750
San Diego, CA 92112-4147
]or]
County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Hwy., Ro om 260
San Diego, CA 92119
]all papers must be rec'd by 3:001
County Clerk's Office
Sa n Luis Obispo County
County Government Center
Room 385
San Luis Obisp o, CA 93408
°1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
County
DF G Handling Fee or
Administration Fee
Santa Barbara
None. County does n ot
collect fee . Pay directly
to DFG .
Department to C ontact
Ph one number
Address
Clerk of the Board
805/568-2240
Tehama
$25.00 all situations.
County Clerk
916/527-3350
Ventura
Yuba
$25. 00 for Negative
Declarations & Erns only,
and only if not a public
agency project.
Clerk of the Board
805/654-2251
$25. 00 only when
DFG gets a fee.
County Clerk
916/741-6341
(Ask for Francis)
Clerk of the Board
Santa Barbara County
105 E. Anapamu St ., Rm 407
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tehama County Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 250
[or]
633 Washington Street
Red Bluff, CA 96080
Clerk of the Board
County of Ventura
800 South Victoria Avenue, 4th
Floor
Ve ntura, CA 93009
Yuba County Clerk's Office
935 14th Street
Marysville, CA 95901
k-/RVPUB/312884
-XXI
°1999 Best Best & Krieger 1..LP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) General Provisions, Purpose and Policy
LOCAL GUIDELINES
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(1999 REVISION)
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS, PURPOSE AND POLICY
1.01 General Provisions. These Local Guidelines ("Guidelines") are to assist the
Commission in implementing the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"). These Guidelines are consistent with the Guidelines for the Implementation of
CEQA ("State Guidelines") which must be followed by state and local agencies in California.
These Guidelines have been adopted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section
21082.
1.02 Purpose. The purpose ofthese Local Guidelines is to help the Commission accomplish
the following basic objectives of CEQA:
(a) To enhance and provide long-term protection for the environment, while providing a
decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.
(b) To provide information to governmental decision -makers and the public regarding the
potential significant environmental effects of the proposed project.
(c) To provide an analysis ofthe environmental effects of future actions associated with the
project to adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for
intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project.
(d) To identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _1- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
OIitU:jJ
Local Guidelines for lmplernenntng the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) General Provisions, Purpose and Policy
(e) To prevent significant avoidable environmental damage through utilization of feasible
project alternatives or mitigation measures.
(f) To disclose and demonstrate to the public the reasons why a governmental agency
approved the project ill the manner chosen. Public participation is an essential part of
the CEQA process. Each public agency should encourage wide public involvement,
formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental
issues related to a public agency's 'activities. Such involvement should include,
whenever possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on
the Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the public agency.
1.03 Applicability. These Guidelines apply to any activity of the Commission which
constitutes a "project" as defined in Guidelines Section 9.35. An Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") is required for each such project which may have a significant effect on the
environment. When the Commission finds that a project will have no significant
environmental effect, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than
an EIR shall be prepared.
An EIR serves several functions for the benefit of the Commission and the public. An
EIR (1) identifies and analyzes the significant environmental effects of a proposed project,
(2) identifies alternatives to the project, and (3) discloses possible ways to reduce or avoid
potential environmental damage. These matters are to be evaluated by the Commission before
the project is approved or disapproved.
The EIR is an informational document. It should not be used to rationalize approval
of a project. CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be
subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social economic, or recreational
development or advancement. Indications of adverse environmental impacts from the
project which are identified in the EIR do not necessarily require disapproval of a project.
Rather, when an EIR shows that a project would cause substantial adverse changes in the
environment, the Commission must respond to the information by one or more of the
following methods:
(a) Changing the proposed project.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-2- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Vi� 1VkJ
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) General Provisions. Purpose and Policy
(b) Imposing conditions on the approval of the project.
(c) Adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of activities to avoid the
problems.
(d) Choosing an alternative way of meeting the same need.
(e) Disapproving the project.
(f) Finding that the unavoidable, significant environmental damage is acceptable pursuant
to a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Although CEQA requires that major consideration be given to preventing environmental
damage, the Commission also has an obligation to balance other public objectives for each
project including economic and social factors.
1.04 Reducing Delay and Paperwork. The State Guidelines encourage local governmental
agencies to reduce delay and paperwork by, among other things:
(a) Integrating the CEQA process into early planning review; to this end, the project
approval process and these procedures, to the maximum extent feasible, are to run
concurrently, not consecutively;
(b) Identifying projects which fit within categorical or other exemptions and are therefore
exempt from CEQA processing;
(c) Using initial studies to identify significant environmental issues and to narrow the scope
of EIRs;
(d) Using a Negative Declaration when a project not otherwise exempt will not have a
significant effect on the environment;
(e) Consulting with state and local responsible agencies before and during the preparation
of an EIR so that the document will meet the needs of all the agencies which will use
it;
(f) Allowing applicants to revise projects to eliminate possible significant effects on the
environment, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration rather
than an EIR;
(g) Integrating CEQA requirements with other environmental review and consultation
requirements;
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -3- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Ouvil.11
Local. Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) _ General Provisions. Purpose and Policy
(h) Emphasizing consultation before an EIR is prepared, rather than submitting adverse
comments on a completed document;
(I) Combining environmental documents with other documents, such as general plans;
(j) Eliminating repetitive discussions of the same issues by using EIRs on programs,
policies or plans and tiering from statements of broad scope to those of narrower scope;
(k) Reducing the length of EIRs by means such as setting appropriate page limits;
(1) Preparing analytic, rather than encyclopedic EIRs;
(m) Mentioning insignificant issues only briefly;
(n) Writing EIRs in plain language;
(o) Following a clear format for EIRs;
(p) Emphasizing the portions of the EIR that are useful to decision -makers and the public
and reducing emphasis on background material;
(q) Incorporating information by reference; and
(r) Making comments on EIRs as specific as possible.
1.05 Compliance With State Law. These Guidelines are intended to implement the
provisions of CEQA and the State Guidelines, and the provisions of CEQA and the State
Guidelines shall be fully complied with even though they may not be set forth or referred to
herein.
1.06 Terminology. The terms "must" or "shall" identify mandatory requirements. The term
"may" is permissive, with the particular decision being left to the discretion of the
Commission. The term "should" identifies the guidance of the Office of Planning and
Research, which the Commission can follow in the absence of countervailing considerations.
1.07 Partial Invalidity. In the event any part or provision of these Guidelines shall be
determined to be invalid, the remaining portions which can be separated from the invalid
unenforceable provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-4- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
u U
-i
1U�:.
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Lead and Responsible Agencies
2. LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
2.01 Lead Agency Principle. The Commission will be the Lead Agency if it will have
principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Where a project is to be
carried out or approved by more than one public agency, only one agency shall be responsible
for the preparation of environmental documents. This agency shall be called the Lead
Agency.
2.02 Selection of Lead Agency. Where two or more public agencies will be involved with
a project, the Lead Agency shall be designated according to the following criteria:
(a) If the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the Lead
Agency even if the project will be located within the jurisdiction of another public
agency.
(b) If the project will be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the Lead
Agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising and
approving the project as a whole. The Lead Agency will normally be the agency with
general governmental powers, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.
(For example, a district which will provide a public service or utility to the project
serves a limited purpose.) If two or more agencies meet this criteria equally, the agency
which acts first on the project will be the Lead Agency.
(c) If two or more public agencies have a substantial claim to be the Lead Agency under
either (a) or (b), they may designate one agency as the Lead Agency by agreement. An
agreement may also provide for cooperative efforts by contract, joint exercise of
powers, or similar devices. If an agreement cannot be reached, the dispute may be
submitted to the Office ofPlanning and Research by any public agency, or the applicant
if a private project is involved.
2.03 Duties of a Lead A2encv. As a Lead Agency, the Commission shall decide whether a
Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR will be required for a project
and shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and consider the document before making its
decision on whether and how to approve the project. The documents may be prepared by
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 _5_ °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0 u3
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Lead and Responsible Agencies
Staff or by private consultants pursuant to a contract with the Commission. However, the
Commission shall independently review and analyze all draft and final reports or declarations
prepared for a project, and shall find that the report or declaration reflects the independent
judgment of the Commission prior to approval of the document. If a Draft EIR, Final EIR
or Focused EIR is prepared under a contract to the Commission, the contract must be
executed within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the Commission sends a Notice
of Preparation. (See Guidelines Section 7.02.)'
During the process of preparing an EIR, the Commission shall have the following
duties:
(a) Immediately after deciding that an EIR is required for a project, the Commission shall
send to each Responsible Agency a Notice of Preparation (Form "G") stating that an
EIR will be prepared. (See Guidelines Section 7.03.)
(b) The Commission shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Draft EIR for the project.
(See Guidelines Section 7.04.)
(c) Once the Draft EIR is completed, the Commission shall file a Notice of Completion
(Form "H") with the Office of Planning and Research. (See Guidelines Section 7.17.)
(d) The Commission shall consult with state, federal and local agencies which exercise
authority over resources which may be affected by the project for their comments on
the completed Draft EIR. (See Guidelines Section 7.20.)
(e) The Commission shall provide public notice of the availability of a Draft EIR (Form
"K") at the same time that it sends a Notice of Completion to the Office ofPlanning and
Research. (See Guidelines Section 7.17.)
(f) The Commission shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from
persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare or cause to be prepared a
written response. A written response must be provided at least ten (10) days prior to
certifying an EIR. (See Guidelines Section 7.23.)
(g) The Commission shall prepare or cause to be prepared a Final EIR before approving
the project. (See Guidelines Section 7.24.)
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-6- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
(� i` ,�.
VuV
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Lead and Responsible Agencies
(h) The Commission shall certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with
CEQA and has been reviewed by the Board of Directors. (See Guidelines Section
7.26.)
(i) The Commission shall include in the Final EIR, the reply of any Responsible Agency to
the Notice of Preparation or Draft EIR. (See Guidelines Sections 2.07, 7.23 and 7.24.)
2.04 Consultation Requirements for Development Projects. An applicant for a development
project must submit a signed statement to the Commission stating whether the project and any
alternatives are located on a site which is included in any list compiled by the Secretary for
Environmental Protection of the California Environmental Protection Agency ("California
EPA") listing hazardous waste sites and other specified sites located in the city or county.
The applicant's statement must contain the following information:
(a) The applicant's name, address, and phone number.
(b) Address of site, and local agency (city/county).
(c) Assessor's book, page, and parcel number.
(d) The list which includes the site, identification number, and date of list.
Before accepting as complete an application for any development project as defined in
Guidelines Section 9.09, the Commission shall consult lists compiled by the Secretary for
Environmental Protection of the California EPA pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 listing hazardous waste sites and other specified sites located in the city or county.
The Commission shall notify an applicant for a development project if the project site is
located on such a list and not already identified. In the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Guidelines Section 6.04) or the Notice
of Preparation of Draft EIR (see Guidelines Section 7.03), the Commission shall specify the
California EPA list, if any, which includes the project site, and shall provide the information
contained in the applicant's statement.
This provision applies only to projects for which applications have not been deemed
complete on or before January 1, 1992.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 _7_ °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0U3IUJ
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Lead and Responsible Agencies
2.05 Responsible Agency Principle. Where a project is to be carried out or approved by
more than one public agency, all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have
discretionary approval power over the project shall be called Responsible Agencies.
2.06 Duties of a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, the Commission shall
consider the environmental documents prepared or caused to be prepared by the Lead Agency
and reach its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved. The
Commission shall also both respond to consultation by the Lead Agency and attend meetings
as requested by the Lead Agency to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate
environmental documents. The Commission should also review and comment on Draft EIRs
and Negative Declarations. Comments shall be limited to those project activities which are
within the Commission's area of expertise or are required to be carried out or approved by
the Commission or are subject to the Commission's powers. As a Responsible Agency, the
Commission may identify significant environmental effects of a project for which mitigation
is necessary. As a Responsible Agency, the Commission may submit to the Lead Agency
proposed mitigation measures which would address those significant environmental effects.
If mitigation measures are required, the Commission shall submit to the Lead Agency
complete and detailed performance objectives for such mitigation measures which would
address the significant environmental effects identified, or refer the Lead Agency to
appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures
submitted to the Lead Agency by the Commission, shall be limited to measures which mitigate .
impacts to resources which are within the Commission's authority. For private projects, the
Commission, as a Responsible Agency, may require the project proponent to provide such
information as may be required and to reimburse the Commission for all costs incurred by it
in reporting to the Lead Agency.
2.07 Response to Notice of Preparation by Responsible Agencies. Within thirty (30) days
of receipt of a Notice of Preparation of an EIR, the Commission, as a Responsible Agency,
shall specify to the Lead Agency the scope and content of the environmental information
related to the Commission's area of statutory responsibility in connection with the proposed
project. At a minimum, the response shall identify the significant environmental issues and
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -8- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
; c�, �.1
L.l 1
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qua/Iry Act (1999) Lead and Responsible Agencies
possible alternatives and mitigation which the Commission, as a Responsible Agency, will
need to have explored in the Draft EIR. Such information shall be specified in writing, shall
be as specific as possible, and shall be communicated to the Lead Agency, by certified mail
or any other method of transmittal which provides it with a record that the notice was
received, not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice of the Lead Agency's deter-
mination. The Lead Agency shall incorporate this information into the EIR.
2.08 Use of Final EIR or Negative Declaration by Responsible Agencies. The Commission,
as a Responsible Agency, shall consider the Lead Agency's Final EIR or Negative Declaration
before acting upon or approving a proposed project. The Commission shall consider the
adequacy of the prior environmental documents for its purposes and in certain instances may
require that a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR be prepared. Mitigation measures and
alternatives deemed feasible and relevant to the Commission's role in carrying out the project
shall be adopted. Findings which are relevant to the Commission's responsibility shall be
made. A Notice of Determination shall be filed by the Responsible Agency, but need not state
that the Lead Agency's EIR or Negative Declaration complies with CEQA.
2.09 Shift in Lead Agency Responsibilities. The Commission, as a Responsible Agency, shall
assume the role of the Lead Agency if:
(a) The Lead Agency did not prepare any environmental documents for the project, and the
statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead
Agency.
(b) The Lead Agency prepared environmental documents for the project, and all of the
following conditions occur:
(1) A Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is required;
(2) The Lead Agency has granted a final approval for the project; and
(3) The statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the
appropriate Lead Agency.
(c) The Lead Agency prepared inadequate environmental documents without providing
public notice of a Negative Declaration or sending Notice of Preparation of an EIR to
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -9- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
OGUlu r
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Lead and Responsible At=encies
Responsible Agencies and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the
action of the appropriate Lead Agency.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-10- c1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
01 3 138
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Qualm Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA
3. ACTIVITIES EXEMPT FROM CEOA
3.01 Actions Subject to CEOA. CEQA applies to discretionary projects proposed to be
carried out or approved by public agencies. If the proposed activity does not come within the
definition of"project" contained in Guidelines Section 9.35, it is exempt from CEQA review.
"Project" does not include:
(a) Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature.
(b) Continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies,
personnel -related actions, general policy and procedure making (except as.provided in
Guidelines Section 9:35), feasibility or planning studies.
(c) The submittal of proposals to a vote of the people.
(d) The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities
which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may have a
potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
(e) Organizational or administrative activities of governments which are political or which
do not result in physical changes in the environment (such as the reorganization of a
school district or detachment of park land).
(f) Where the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment.
3.02 Ministerial Projects. A ministerial project is exempt from CEQA review. This is a
project undertaken or approved by the Commission upon a given set of facts, in a prescribed
manner, and in obedience to statute, ordinance, regulation or other legal mandate. A minis-
terial project is one in which the Commission officer or employee has no discretionary power
to exercise personal judgment or opinion as to the method in which the project will be carried
out. CEQA review would be irrelevant for a ministerial project, because the Commission
must act in a preordained way regardless of environmental impacts. The decision whether a
proposed project is ministerial in nature may involve or require, to some extent, interpretation
of language of the legal mandate, and should be made on a case -by -case basis. Ministerial
projects include, but are not limited to:
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -11- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Activities Exempt from CEQA
(a) Issuance of business licenses;
(b) Approval of final subdivision maps and final parcel maps;
(c) Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections;
(d) Issuance of licenses;
(e) Issuance of a permit to do street work;
(f) Issuance of building permits where the Commission does not retain significant
discretionary power to modify or shape the project.
Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial and
discretionary nature, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and subject to the
requirements of CEQA.
3.03 Exemptions in General. CEQA and the State Guidelines exempt certain activities and
provide that local agencies shall further identify and describe certain exemptions. The
requirements of CEQA and the obligation to prepare an EIR, Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration do not apply to the exempt activities which are set forth in
CEQA, the State Guidelines and this Chapter.
3.04 Preliminary Exemption Assessment. If, in the judgment of Staff; a proposed activity
is exempt, Staff should so find on the form entitled "Preliminary Exemption Assessment"
(Form "A"). The Preliminary Exemption Assessment shall be retained at the Commission's
offices as a public record.
3.05 Notice of Exemption. After Commission approval of an exempt project, a "Notice of
Exemption" (Form "B") may be filed by Staff with the Clerk. The Preliminary Exemption
Assessment shall be attached to the Notice of Exemption for filing. If filed, the Clerk must
post the Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt, and the Notice must remain posted
for thirty (30)days. Although no California Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") filing fee
is applicable to exempt projects, the Preliminary Exemption Assessment shall be attached to
the Notice of Exemption for filing. The Clerk customarily charges a documentary handling
fee to pay for record keeping on behalf of the DFG. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary
to determine if such a fee will be required for the project.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-12- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
V`
�'A a il
Local Guidelines for Implementmg the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA
The filing of a Notice of Exemption is recommended because it starts a thirty-five
(35) day statute of limitations on legal challenges to the Commission's determination that the
project is exempt from CEQA. The Commission is encouraged to make postings of all filed
notices available in electronic, format on the Internet. These electronic postings are in
addition to the procedures required by the State Guidelines and the Public Resources Code.
If a Notice of Exemption is not filed, a one hundred eighty (180) day statute of limitations will
apply. When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the
Commission determines the project is exempt, the Notice must be mailed, first class postage
prepaid, within five (5) days of the Commission's determination. If such a request is made
following the Commission's determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner
as soon as possible.
3.06 Disapproved Projects. Projects which the Commission rejects or disapproves are
exempt. An applicant shall not be relieved of paying the costs for an EIR or Negative
Declaration prepared for a project prior to the Commission's disapproval of the project.
3.07 No Possibility of Significant Effect. Where it can be seen with absolute certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is exempt.
3.08 Emergency Projects. The following types of emergency projects are exempt: (The
term "emergency" is defined in Guidelines Section 9.13.)
(a) Work in a disaster -stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by
the Governor pursuant to Section 8550 of the Government Code. This includes
projects that will remove, destroy, or significantly alter an historical resource when that
resource represents an imminent threat to the public of bodily harm or of damage to
adjacent property or when the project has received a determination by the State Office
of Historic Preservation pursuant to Section 5028(b) of the Public Resources Code.
(b) Emergency repairs to publicly or privately owned service facilities necessary to
maintain service essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -13- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA
(c) Projects necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. This does not include long-
term projects undertaken for the purpose of preventing or mitigating a situation that has
a low probability of occurrence in the short-term.
(d) Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair,
or restore an existing highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land
subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide, provided that the project is within
the existing right of way of that highway and is initiated within one year of the damage
occurring. This exemption does not apply to highways designated as official state
scenic highways, nor any project undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public
agency to expand or widen a highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land
subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide.
(e) Seismic work on highways and bridges pursuant to Section 180.2 of the Streets and
Highways Code, Section 180 et. seq.
3.09 Feasibility and Planning Studies. A project which involves only feasibility or planning
studies for possible future actions which the Commission has not yet approved, adopted or
funded is exempt.
3.10 Rates, Tolls. Fares and Charges. The establishment, modification, structuring,
restructuring or approval of rates, tolls, fares or other charges by the Commission which the
Commission finds are for one or more of the purposes listed below are exempt.
(a) Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits;
(b) Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or materials;
(c) Meeting financial reserve needs and requirements;
(d) Obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service
areas.
When the Commission determines that one of the aforementioned activities pertaining
to rates, tolls, fares or charges is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, it shall incorporate
written findings setting forth the specific basis for the claim of exemption in the record of any
proceeding in which such an exemption is claimed.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
0 ,L, 3 J
-14- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quali Act (1999)
Activities Exempt from CEQA
3.11 Subsurface Pipelines Within a Public Right -of -Way. The installation of a new pipeline
or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal or
demolition of an existing subsurface pipeline is exempt where the project is less than one mile
in length and located within a public street, highway or any other public right-of-way.
3.12 Affordable Housing Projects Up to 45 Units. A residential housing development
project in an urbanized area with no more than forty-five (45) units affordable to lower
income households (as defined by state law) is exempt if the developer: (a) provides adequate
legal commitments that the project will continue to provide low and moderate income
housing, and (b) meets all other requirements set forth in Section 21080.14 of the Public
Resources Code.
3.13 Minor Alterations to Fluoridate Water Utilities. Minor alterations to water utilities
made for the purpose of complying with the fluoridation requirements of Health and Safety
Code Sections 4026.7 and 4026.8 or regulations adopted thereunder are exempt.
3.14 Ballot Measures. The definition ofProject in the State Guidelines specifically excludes
the submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community.
Although there is no distinction between measures sponsored by the Commission or the
voters, the Commission should be careful in using this exemption when it exercises discretion
in approving a project which is later submitted to the voters for their approval, such as
statutory development agreements or deannexation proposals.
3.15 Transit Agency Responses to Revenue Shortfalls. CEQA does not apply to actions
taken on or after July 1, 1995 to implement budget reductions made by a publicly owned
transit agency as a result of a fiscal emergency caused by the failure of agency revenues to
adequately fund agency programs and facilities. Actions shall be limited to those directly
undertaken by or financially supported in whole or in part by the transit agency pursuant to
the definition of a project as set forth in State Guidelines Section 15378(a)(1) or (2),
including actions which reduce or eliminate the availability of an existing publicly owned
transit service, facility, program, or activity.
(a) When invoking this exemption, the transit agency shall make a specific finding that
there is a fiscal emergency. Before taking its proposed budgetary actions and making
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -15- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999}
Activities Exempt from CEQA
the finding of fiscal emergency, the transit agency shall hold a public hearing. After this
public hearing, the transit agency shall respond within thirty (30) days at a regular
public meeting to suggestions made by the public at that initial hearing. The transit
agency may make the finding of fiscal emergency only after it has responded to public
suggestions.
(b) "Fiscal emergency" means that the transit agency is projected to have negative working
capital within 1 year from the date that the agency finds that a fiscal emergency exists.
"Working capital" is defined as the sum of all unrestricted cash, unrestricted short-term
investments and unrestricted short-term accounts receivable, minus unrestricted
accounts payable. Employee retirement funds, including deferred compensation plans
and Section 401(k) plans, health insurance reserves, bond payment reserves, workers'
compensation reserves, and insurance reserves shall not be included as working capital.
(c) This exemption does not apply to the action of any publicly owned transit agency to
reduce or eliminate a transit service, facility, program, or activity that was approved or
adopted as a mitigation measure in any environmental document certified or adopted
by any public agency under either CEQA or NEPA.
3.16 Other Specific Exemptions. CEQA and the State Guidelines exempt many other
specific activities, including early activities related to thermal power plants, ongoing projects,
transportation improvement programs, family day care homes, congestion management
programs, railroad grade separation projects, restriping of streets or highways to relieve
traffic congestion, and hazardous or volatile liquid pipelines. Specific statutory exemptions
are listed in the Public Resources Code, including Sections 21080 through 21080.33, and in
State Guidelines, including Sections 15260 through 15285.
3.17 Categorical Exemptions. The State Guidelines establish certain classes of categorical
exemptions. These apply to classes of projects which have been legislatively determined not
to have a significant effect on the environment and which, therefore, are exempt. Compliance
with the requirements of CEQA or the preparation of environmental documents for any
project which comes within one of these classes of categorical exemptions is not required.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 3897, -16- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA
The classes of projects are briefly summarized below. (Reference to the State Guidelines for
the full description of each exemption is recommended.)
The exemptions of Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 below are qualified in that such projects
must be considered in light of the location of the project. A project that is ordinarily
insignificant in its impact on the environment may, in a particularly sensitive environment, be
significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances except where the
project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern which is
designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state or local
agencies.
It is important to note that all exemptions for all classes are qualified to the extent that
they are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in
the same place over time is significant or when there is a reasonable possibility that the
activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
With the foregoing limitations in mind, the following classes of activity are exempt:
Class 1 Existing Facilities.
The operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures, facilities, equipment or other property of every kind,
which activity involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of
the Commission's determination. The types of "existing facilities" itemized in Class 1 are not
intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key
consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.
(State Guidelines Section 15301.)
Class 2 Replacement or Reconstruction.
Replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities, structures, or other property where
the new facility or structure will be located on the same site as the replaced or reconstructed
facility or structure and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the replaced
or reconstructed facility or structure. (State Guidelines Section 15302.)
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -17- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0031.1j
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA
Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Construction of limited numbers of small, new facilities or structures and installation
of small, new equipment or facilities in small structures, and the conversion of existing small
structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior
of the structure. This exemption includes structures built for both residential and commercial
uses. (The maximum number of structures allowable under this exemption is set forth in State
Guidelines Section 15303.)
Class 4 Minor Alterations to Land.
Minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not
involve removal of healthy, mature or scenic trees. (State Guidelines Section 15304.)
Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations.
Minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than
twenty percent (20%) which do not result in any changes in land use or density. (State
Guidelines Section 15305.)
Class 6 Information Collection.
Basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation
activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
(State Guidelines Section 15306.)
Class 7 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources.
Actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to
assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the
regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. (State Guidelines
Section 15307.)
Class 8 Actions By Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.
Actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to
assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection ofthe environment where the
regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. (State Guidelines
Section 15308.)
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-18- X1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
f1 .T
�Ut_t lt!
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA
Class 9 Inspection.
Inspection activities, including, but not limited to, inquiries into the performance of an
operation and examinations of the quality, health or safety of a project. (State Guidelines
Section 15309.)
Class 10 Loans.
Loans made by the Department of Veteran Affairs under the Veterans Farm and Home
Purchase Act of 1943, mortgages for the purchase of existing structures where the loan will
not be used for new construction and the purchase of such mortgages by financial institutions.
(State Guidelines Section 15310.)
Class 11 Accessory Structures.
Construction or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing
commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including, but not limited to, on -premise
signs, small parking lots, and placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard
towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms or similar items in generally the same locations
from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums or other facilities designed for public use.
(State Guidelines Section 15311.)
Class 12 Surplus Government Property Sales.
Sales of surplus government property, except for certain parcels of land located in an
area of statewide, regional or areawide concern. (State Guidelines Section 15312.)
Class 13 Acquisition of Lands for Wildlife Conservation Purposes.
Acquisition of lands for fish and wildlife conservation purposes, including habitat
preservation, and for preserving access to public lands and waters where the purpose of the
acquisition is to preserve the land in its natural condition. (State Guidelines Section 15313.)
Class 14 Minor Additions to Schools.
Minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds where the addition
does not increase original student capacity by more than twenty-five percent (25%) or ten
(10) classrooms, whichever is less. The addition of portable classrooms is included in this
exemption. (State Guidelines Section 15314.)
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -19- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
7
tj U .1
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Activities Exempt from CEQA
Class 15 Minor Land Divisions.
Divisions of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial or industrial
use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and
zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed
parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger
parcel within the previous two (2) years, and the parcel does not have an average slope
greater than twenty percent (20%). (State Guidelines Section 15315.)
Class 16 Transfer of Ownership of Land in Order to Create Parks.
Acquisition, sale, or other transfer of land in order to establish a park where the land
is in a natural condition or contains historical or archaeological resources. CEQA will apply
when a management plan is proposed that will change the area from its natural condition or
cause substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic or archaeological
resource. (State Guidelines Section 15316.)
Class 17 Open Space Contracts or Easements.
Establishment of agricultural preserves, making and renewing of open space contracts
under the Williamson Act or acceptance of easements or fee interests in order to maintain the
open space character of the area. (The cancellation of such preserves, contracts, interests or
easements is not included in this exemption.) (State Guidelines Section 15317.)
Class I S Designation of Wilderness Areas.
Designation of wilderness areas under the California Wilderness System. (State
Guidelines Section 15318.)
Class 19 Annexations of Existine Facilities and Lots for Exempt Facilities.
(a) Annexations to a city or special district of areas containing existing public or
private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or prezoning of
either the gaining or losing governmental agency, whichever is more restrictive; provided,
however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity
to serve only the existing facilities.
(b) Annexations of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities
exempted by Class 3. (State Guidelines Section 15319.)
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-20- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA
Class 20 Changes in Organization of Local Agencies.
Changes in the organization of local governmental agencies where the changes do not
change the geographical area in which previously existing powers are exercised. (State
Guidelines Section 15320.)
Class 21 Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies.
Actions by the Commission to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate or
other entitlement for use issued, adopted or prescribed by the Commission or a law, general
rule, standard or objective, administered or adopted by the Commission. (Construction
activities undertaken by the Commission taking the enforcement or revocation action are not
included in this exemption.) (State Guidelines Section 15321.)
Class 22 Educational or Training Programs Involving No Physical Changes.
The adoption, alteration or termination of educational or training programs which
involve no physical alteration in the area affected or which involve physical changes only in
the interior of existing school or training structures. (State Guidelines Section 15322.)
Class 23 Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings.
Continued or repeated normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings for
which the facilities were designed, where there is past history: of at least three years, of the
facility being used for the same or similar purposes. Facilities included within this exemption
include, but are not limited to race tracks, stadiums, convention centers, auditoriums,
amphitheaters, planetariums, swimming pools and amusement parks. (State Guidelines
Section 15323.)
Class 24 Regulation of Working Conditions.
Actions taken by the Commission to regulate employee wages, hours of work or
working conditions where there will be no demonstrable physical changes outside the place
of work. (State Guidelines Section 15324.)
Class 25 Transfers of Ownership of interest in Land to Preserve Existing Natural
Conditions and Historical Resources.
Transfers of ownership of interest in land in order to preserve open space, habitat, or
historical resources. Examples include, but are not limited to, acquisition, sale, or other
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -21- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
1 ; ; J,
Local Guideline for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA
transfer of areas to preserve existing natural conditions, including plant or animal habitats,
to allow continued agricultural use of the areas, to allow restoration of natural conditions, or
to prevent encroachment of development into floodplains. (State Guidelines Section 15325.)
Class 26 Acquisition of Housing for Housing Assistance Programs.
Actions by a redevelopment agency, housing authority or other public agency to
implement an adopted Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring an interest in housing units.
(State Guidelines Section 15326.)
Class 27 Leasing New Facilities.
Leasing of a newly constructed or previously unoccupied privately owned facility by
a local or state agency where the Commission determines, based on specific criteria, that the
building is exempt. (State Guidelines Section 15327.)
Class 28 Small Hydroelectric Proiects as Existing Facilities.
Installation of certain small hydroelectric generating facilities in connection with existing
dams, canals and pipelines. (State Guidelines Section 15328.)
Class 29 Cogeneration Projects at Existing Facilities.
Installation of cogeneration equipment with a capacity of 50 megawatts or less at
existing facilities meeting certain conditions. (State Guidelines Section 15329.)
Class 30 Minor Actions to Prevent. Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate or Eliminate the Release
or Threat of Release of Hazardous Waste.or Hazardous Substances
Any minor cleanup actions costing $1 million or less to prevent, minimize, stabilize,
mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of a hazardous waste or substance. (State
Guidelines Section 15330.)
Class 31 Historical Resource Restoration / Rehabilitation
Maintenance, repairs, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation,
conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines
for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995),
Weeks and Grimmer (State Guidelines Section 15331).
Class 32 In -Fill Development Projects
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -22- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA
Projects characterized as in -fill development which meet the following conditions:
(a) The project is consistent with applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
(State Guidelines Section 15332.)
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-23- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality An (1999) Time Limitations
4. TIME LIMITATIONS
4.01 Review of Private Project Applications. Staff shall determine whether the application
for a private project is complete within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application. No
application may be deemed incomplete for lack of a waiver of the time limitations in
Guidelines Sections 4.03 and 4.04. Accepting an application as complete does not limit the
authority of the Commission, acting as the Lead Agency, to require the applicant to submit
additional information needed for environmental evaluation of the project. Requiring such
additional information after the application is complete does not change the status of the
application.
4.02 Determination of Environmental Impact. Except as provided in Guidelines Sections
4.05 and 4.06, Staffs initial determination as to whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an EIR should be prepared shall be made within thirty (30) days from
the date on which an application for a project is accepted as complete by the Commission.
This period may be extended fifteen (15) days with consent of the applicant and the
Commission.
4.03 Completion and Adoption of Negative Dec aration. For private projects involving the
issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more
public agencies, the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be completed
and approved within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date when the Commission
accepted the application as complete. Completion of a Negative Declaration/Mitigated
Negative Declaration within the 180 -day period shall include completion of the Initial Study,
public review and the preparation of documents for approval by the decision making body
(see definition Guidelines Section 9.08).
In the event that compelling circumstances justify additional time and the project
applicant consents thereto, Staff may provide for a reasonable extension of the time limit for
completing and adopting the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4.04 Completion and Certification of Final EIR. For private projects, the Final EIR shall be
completed and certified by the Board of Directors within one year after the date when the
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -24- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Time Limitations
Commission accepted the application as complete. In the event that compelling circumstances
justify additional time, the Board ofDirectors may provide a one-time extension up to ninety
(90) days for completing and adopting the EIR, upon consent of the Commission and the
project applicant.
4.05 Projects Subject to the Permit Streamlining Act. The Permit Streamlining Act requires
agencies to make decisions on development project approvals within specified time limits.
If a project is subject to the Act, the Commission cannot require the project applicant to
submit the informational equivalent of an EIR or prove compliance with CEQA as a
prerequisite to determining whether the project application is complete. In addition, if
requested by the project applicant, the Commission must begin processing the project
application prior to final CEQA action, provided the information necessary to begin the
process is available.
Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the Commission as Lead Agency must approve or
disapprove the development project application within one hundred eighty (180) days from
the date on which it certifies the EIR, or ninety (90) days if an extension for completing and
certifying the EIR is granted (see Guidelines Section 4.04). If the Commission adopts a
Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or determines the development project
is exempt from CEQA, it shall approve or disapprove the project application within sixty (60)
days from the date on which it adopts the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative
Declaration or determines that the project is exempt from CEQA.
Except for waivers of the time periods for preparing a joint Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (as outlined in Government Code Sections 65951
and 65957), The Commission cannot require a waiver ofthe time limits specified in the Permit
Streamlining Act as a condition of accepting or processing a development project application.
In addition, the Commission cannot disapprove a development project application in order
to comply with the time limits specified in the Permit Streamlining Act.
4.06 Projects, Other Than Those Subject to the Permit Streamlining Act, With Short Time
Periods for Approval. A few statutes require agencies to make decisions on project
applications within time limits that are so short that review ofthe project under CEQA would
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-25- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
3 i 3
v •-
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Time Limitations
be difficult. To enable the Commission as Lead Agency to comply with both the enabling
statute and CEQA, the Commission shall deem a project application as not received for filing
under the enabling statute until such time as the environmental documentation required by
CEQA is complete. This section applies where all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The enabling statute for a program, other than development projects under Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code,
requires the Commission to take action on an application within a specified period of
time of six (6) months or less;
(b) The enabling statute provides that the project is approved by operation of law if the
Commission fails to take any action within the specified time period; and
(c) The project application involves the Commission's issuance of a lease, permit, license,
certificate or other entitlement for use.
In any case, the environmental document shall be completed or certified and the
decision on the application shall be made within the period established by the Permit
Streamlining Act (Government Code Sections 65920, et seq.).
4.07 Suspension of Time Periods. An unreasonable delay by an applicant in meeting
Commission requests necessary for the preparation of a Negative Declaration or an EIR shall
suspend the running of the time periods described in Guidelines Sections 4.03 and 4.04 for
the period of the unreasonable delay. Alternately, the Commission may disapprove a project
application where there is unreasonable delay in meeting requests. The Commission may also
allow a renewed application to start at the same point in the process where the application
was when it was disapproved.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -26- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study
5. INITIAL STUDY
5.01 Preparation of Initial Study. If the Commission determines that it is the Lead Agency
for a project which is not exempt, the Commission shall prepare an Initial Study to ascertain
whether the project may have a substantial adverse effect on the environment, regardless of
whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial. All phases of project
planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. An Initial
Study may rely on expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies or other substantial
evidence. However, an Initial Study is neither intended nor required to include the level of
detail included in an EIR.
(a) For Commission projects, the Initial Study shall be prepared by Staff or by private
experts pursuant to contract with the Commission.
(b) For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall submit
all data and information as may be required by the Commission to determine whether
the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. All costs
incurred by the Commission in reviewing the data and information submitted, or in
conducting its own investigation based upon such data and information, or in preparing
an Initial Study for the project shall be borne by the person or entity proposing to carry
out the project.
5.02 Informal Consultation With Other Agencies. When more than one public agency will
be involved in undertaking or approving a project, the Commission as Lead Agency shall
consult with all Responsible and any Trustee Agencies. Such consultation shall be undertaken
as part of the Initial Study process prior to determining whether an EIR, Mitigated Negative
Declaration or Negative Declaration is required for the project.
This early consultation, which may be done quickly and informally, is designed to insure
that the EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will reflect the
concerns of all Responsible Agencies that will issue approvals for the project and all Trustee
Agencies responsible for natural resources affected by the project. It may include con-
sultation with other individuals or organizations with an interest in the project. The Office
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -27- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
pu, -�1 1
V V 5
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qualm, Act (1999) Initial Study
of Planning and Research, upon request of the Commission or a private project applicant,
shall assist in identifying the various Responsible Agencies for a proposed project and ensure
that the Responsible Agencies are notified regarding any early consultation. In the case of a
project undertaken by a public agency, the Office of Planning and Research, upon request of
the Commission, shall ensure that any Responsible Agency or public agency that has
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project is notified regarding any early consultation.
If, during the early consultation process it is determined that the project will clearly
have a significant effect on the environment, the Commission may immediately dispense with
the Initial Study and determine that an EIR is required.
5.03 Consultation With Private Project Applicant. During or immediately after preparation
of an Initial Study for a private project, the Commission may consult with the applicant to
determine if the applicant is willing to modify the project to reduce or avoid the significant
effects identified in the Initial Study. If the project can be revised to avoid or mitigateeffects
to a level of insignificance and there is no substantial evidence before the Commission that the
project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment, the Commission may
prepare and adopt a Negative Declaration. If any significant effect may still occur despite
alterations of the project, an EIR must be prepared.
5.04 Purposes of Initial Study. The Initial Study shall be used to determine whether a
Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR shall be prepared for a
project. It provides written documentation of whether the Commission found evidence of
significant adverse impacts which might occur. The purposes of an Initial Study are to:
(a) Identify environmental impacts;
(b) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts
before an EIR is written;
(c) Focus an EIR, if one is required, on potentially significant environmental effects;
(d) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
(e) Provide documentation ofthe factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that
a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
(f) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-28- c1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
;Zi
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) _ Initial Study
(g) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project.
5.05 Contents of Initial Study. An Initial Study shall contain in brief form:
(a) A description of the project, including the location of the project. The project
description must be consistent throughout the environmental review process;
(b) An identification of the environmental setting;
(c) An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method
provided that entries are briefly explained to show the evidence supporting the entries.
The brief explanation may be through either a narrative or a reference to other
information such as attached maps, photographs, or an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration. A reference to another document should include, if possible, a citation to
the page or pages where the information is found;
(d) A discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified;
(e) An examination ofwhether the project is compatible with existing zoning and local land
use plans;
(f) The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study;
(g) A summary of any comments regarding the project received from Responsible
Agencies, Trustee Agencies or other persons; and
(h) Identification of prior EIRs or environmental documents which could be used with the
project.
5.06 Use of a Checklist Initial Study. When properly completed, the Environmental
Checklist (Form "J") will meet the requirements of Guidelines Section 5.05 for private pro-
jects provided that the entries on the checklist are explained. For a Commission -initiated
project, the requirements of Guidelines Section 5.05 will be met by use of the Environmental
Checklist (Form "J") and a separate attachment containing a description of the project,
including its location and an identification of the environmental setting and summaries of any
comments received regarding the project.
California courts have rejected the use of a bare, unsupplemented Initial Study checklist.
An Initial Study must contain more than mere conclusions. It must disclose supporting data
or evidence upon which the Commission relied in conducting the Study. The Commission
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -29- "1999 Best Best at Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Qua}inr Act (1999)
Initial Study
shall augment checklists with supporting factual data and reference information sources when
completing the forms. Explanation of all "potential impact" answers should be provided on
attached sheets. For controversial projects, it is advisable to state briefly why "no" answers
were checked. If practicable, attach an addendum listing commonly used reference material
such as plans, traffic studies, air quality data and prior EIRs.
5.07 Evaluating Significant Environmental Effects. In evaluating the environmental
significance of effects disclosed by the Initial Study, the Commission shall consider:
(a) Whether the Initial Study and/or any comments received informally during consultations
indicate that a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant adverse
environmental impact which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Even if a
fair argument can be made to the contrary, an EIR should be prepared.
(b) Whether both primary (direct) and secondary (indirect) consequences of the project
were evaluated. Primary consequences are immediately related to the project, while
secondary consequences are related more to the primary consequences than to the
project itself. For example, secondaryimpacts upon the resources base, including land,
air, water and energy use of an area, may result from population growth, a primary
impact.
(c) Whether adverse social and economic changes will result from a physical change caused
by the project. Adverse economic and social changes resulting from a project are not,
in themselves, significant environmental effects. However, if such adverse changes
cause physical changes in the environment, those consequences may be used as the
basis for finding that the physical change is significant.
(d) Whether there is serious public controversy or disagreement among experts over the
environmental effects ofthe project. However, controversy or disagreement alone shall
not require preparation of an EIR in the absence of substantial evidence of significant
effects.
(e) Whether the project meets existing standards for air emissions and water discharges of
a particular pollutant. If so, it may be presumed that the discharge will not create a
significant environmental effect, absent information to the contrary.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-30- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study
(f) Whether the cumulative impact of the project is significant and whether the effects of
the project are "cumulatively considerable" (as defined in Guidelines Section 9.07)
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, and
"probable future projects' (as defined in Guidelines Section 9.34). The Commission
may determine that the incremental impacts of a project are not cumulatively
considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved
plan or mitigation program which is specified in law or properly adopted by a public
agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources, and which provides specific
requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem. The
Commission may also determine that the incremental impacts of a project are not
cumulatively considerable when they are so small that they make only a "de minimis"
contribution to a significant cumulative impact caused by other projects that would
exist in the absence of the proposed project. A de minimis contribution means that the
environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed
project is implemented.
(g) Whether the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource.
(h) Whether the effect complies with a "standard" (as defined in Guidelines Section 9.39).
A change in the environment is not a significant effect if it complies with such a
standard.
5.08 Mandatory Findings of Significant Effect. Whenever any of the conditions set forth
below are found to exist, a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment shall be required:
(a) The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range. of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -31- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qualm: Act (1999)
Initial Study
(b) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
(c) The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past, current, and probable future projects as defined in Guidelines Sections
9.07 and 9.34. That is, the Commission is required to determine whether the
incremental impacts of a project are cumulatively considerable by evaluating them
against the back -drop of the environmental effects of the other projects.
(d) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on humans
either directly or indirectly.
5.09 Mandatory Preparation of an EIR for Waste Burning Projects. The Commission, as
Lead Agency, shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an EIR or,
if appropriate, a modification, addendum, or supplement to an existing EIR for any project
involving the burning of municipal wastes, hazardous waste or refuse -derived fuel, including,
but not limited to, tires, if the project consists of any of the following:
(a) The construction of a new facility.
(b) The expansion of an existing hazardous waste burning facility which would increase its
permitted capacity by more than ten percent (10%).
(c) The issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit to a land disposal facility, as defined
in Guidelines Section 9.21.
(d) The issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit to an offsite large treatment facility,
as defined in Guidelines Sections 9.22 and 9.31.
The Commission shall calculate the percentage of expansion for an existing facility by
comparing the proposed facility capacity with either of the following which would be
applicable:
(a) The facility capacity authorized in the facility's hazardous waste facilities permit
pursuant to Section 25200 of the Health and Safety Code, or its grant of interim status
pursuant to Section 25200.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or the facility capacity
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-32- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Studv
authorized in any state or local agency permit allowing the construction or operation
of the facility for the burning of hazardous waste granted before January 1, 1990.
(b) The facility capacity authorized in the facility's original hazardous facilities permit, grant
of interim status, or any state or local agency permit allowing the construction or
operation of a facility for the burning of hazardous waste, granted on or after January
1, 1990.
The EIR requirement does not apply to any project which exclusively burns any of the
following:
(a) digester gas produced from manure or any other solid or semi -solid animal waste;
(b) methane gas produced from a disposal site which is used only for the disposal of solid
waste;
(c) forest, agricultural, wood or other biomass wastes;
(d) hazardous waste in an incineration unit that is transportable and which is either at a site
for not longer than three years or is part of a remedial or removal action;
(e) refinery waste burned in a flare on the site of generation;
(f) methane gas produced at a municipal sewage treatment plant and burned in a flare;
(g) hazardous waste, or hazardous waste as a supplemental fuel, as part of a research,
development, or demonstration project which, consistent with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, has been determined to be innovative and
experimental by the State Department of Health Services and which is limited in type
and quantity of waste to that necessary to determine the efficacy and performance
capabilities of the technology or process; provided, however, that any facility which
operated as a research, development or demonstration project and for which an applica-
tion is thereafter submitted for a hazardous waste facility permit for operation other
than as a research, development or demonstration project shall be considered a new
facility for the burning of hazardous waste, and therefore subject to EIR requirements;
(h) soils contaminated only with petroleum fuels or the vapors from these soils;
(I) exclusively treats less than 3,000 pounds of hazardous waste per day in a thermal
processing unit operated in the absence of open flame, and submits a worst -case health
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -33- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
OLv13_i
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study
risk assessment of the technology to the State Department of Health Services for
review and distribution to the interested public. This assessment shall be prepared in
accordance with guidelines set forth in the Air Toxics Assessment Manual of the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association;
(j) less than 1,200 pounds of infectious waste per day, as defined in Section 25117.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, on hospital sites;
(k) chemicals and fuels as part of firefighter training;
(1) exclusively conducts open burns of explosives subject to the requirements of the local
or regional air pollution control district and in compliance with OSHA and Cal -OSHA
regulations; or
(m) exclusively conducts onsite burning of less than 3,000 pounds per day of fumes directly
from a manufacturing or commercial process.
Such projects are not exempt from the other requirements of CEQA, the State
Guidelines, or these Local Guidelines. This section does not apply to any project over which
the State Energy Resources Conservation_ and Development Commission has assumed
jurisdiction per Health and Safety Code Section 25500 et seq. This section also does not
apply to projects listed in paragraph three (3) of Guidelines Section 5.09 (c) and (d) if the
facilities manage hazardous waste identified or listed on or after January 1, 1992.
5.10 Evaluatine Impacts on Historical Resources. Projects that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, as defined in Guidelines Section
9.18, are projects that may have a significant effect on the environment, thus requiring
consideration under CEQA. Particular attention and care should be given when considering
such projects, especially projects involving the demolition of an historical resource, since such
demolitions have been determined to cause a significant effect on the environment.
Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration ofthe resource or its immediate surroundings,
such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _34- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qualnv_ Act (1999)
Initial Study
(a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of
an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion
in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
(b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that
account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources or its identification in
an historical resources survey, unless the Lead Agency establishes by a preponderance
of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of
an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility
for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by the
Lead Agency for purposes of CEQA.
Generally, a project that follows either one of the following sets of standards and
guidelines will be considered mitigated to a level of less than significance: (a) the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and_Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or (b) the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer.
In the event of an accidental discovery of a possible historical resource during
construction of the project, the Commission may provide for the evaluation of the find by a
qualified archaeologist or other professional.. If the find is determined to be an historical
resource, the Commission should take appropriate steps to implement appropriate avoidance
or mitigation measures. Work on non -affected portions of the project, as determined by the
Commission, may continue during the process.
5.11 Evaluating Impacts on Archaeol ical Sites. When a project will impact an
archaeological site, the Commission shall first determine whether the site is an historical
resource, as defined in Guidelines Section 9.18. If the archaeological site is an historical
resource, it shall be treated and evaluated as such, and not as an archaeological resource. If
the archaeological site does not meet the definition of an historical resource, but does meet
the definition of a unique archaeological resource set forth in Section 21083.2 of the Public
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -35- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guideltnes for implementing the
California Environmental Qualnv Act (1.999) Initial Study
Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with said provisions of the Public
Resources Code. The time and cost limitations described in Section 21083.2(c -f) do not
apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project
location contains unique archaeological resources.
If the archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor an
historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a
significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the
effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on
other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.
In the event of an accidental discovery of a possible unique archaeological resource
during construction of the project, the Commission may provide for the evaluation ofthe find
by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be a unique archaeological resource,
the Commission should take appropriate steps to implement appropriate avoidance or
mitigation measures. Work on non -affected portions of the project, as determined by the
Commission, may continue during the process.
When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native
American human remains within the Project, the Commission shall comply with the provisions
of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d). In the event of an accidental discovery or
recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the
Commission shall comply with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).
5.12 Environmental Impact Assessment. The job of the Initial Study is to identify which
environmental impacts may be significant. Based upon the Initial Study, Staff shall determine
whether a proposed project may or will have a significant effect on the environment. Such
determination shall be made in writing on the Environmental Impact Assessment Form (Form
"C"). If Staff finds that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it shall
recommend that a Negative Declaration be prepared and adopted by the decision making
body. If Staff finds that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but the
effects can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, it shall recommend that a Mitigated
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -36- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Ou3 Z J4
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Initial Study
Negative Declaration be prepared and adopted by the decision making body. If Staff finds
that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, it shall recommend that an
EIR be prepared and certified by the decision making body.
5.13 Final Determination. The Board of Directors shall have the final responsibility for
determining whether an EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall
be required for any project. The Board of Directors' determination shall be final and
conclusive on all persons, including Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies, except as
provided in Section 15050(c) of the State Guidelines.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-37- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0 3135
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Qua! iry Act (1999)
Negative Declaration
6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6.01 Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration (Form "E") shall
be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study shows that there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant or
potentially significant adverse effect on the environment. (See Guidelines Sections 9.35 and
9.37.)
6.02 Decision to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Form "E") shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial
Study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but:
(a) The project applicant has agreed to revise the project or the Commission can revise the
project to avoid these significant effects or to mitigate the effects to a point where it is
clear that no significant effects would occur and
(b) There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Commission that
the revised project may have a significant effect.
If an applicant proposes mitigation measures, the project plans must be revised to incor-
porate these mitigation measures before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for
public review. It is insufficient to require an applicant to adopt mitigation measures after final
adoption of -the Negative Declaration or to state that mitigation measures will be
recommended on the basis of a future study. The Commission must know the measures at
the time the Negative Declaration is adopted in order for them to be evaluated and accepted
as adequate mitigation. Evidence of agreement by the applicant to such mitigation should be
in the record prior to public review. Except where noted, the procedural requirements for the
preparation and approval of a Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration are
the same.
6.03 Contracting for Preparation of Negative Declaration. The Commission, when acting
as Lead Agency, is responsible for preparing all documents required pursuant to CEQA. The
documents may be prepared by Staff or by private consultants pursuant to a contract with the
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -38- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration
Commission, but they must be the Commission's product and reflect the independent
judgment of the Commission.
6.04 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated gative Declaration.
When Staff, based upon the Initial Study, recommends to the decision making body the adop-
tion of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Notice ofIntent to Adopt
a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "D") shall be provided to
the public, to all Responsible Agencies and to every other public agency with jurisdiction by
law over resources affected by the project at least twenty (20) days before the final adoption
of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration by the decision making body.
The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall
be mailed to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have
previously filed a written request with the Commission. A copy of the proposed Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study shall be attached to the
Notice of Intent to Adopt that is sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency
concerned with the project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over
resources affected by the project. The Commission may charge a fee for this service, except
to other public agencies. The Commission may require requests for notices to be renewed
annually. Ifthe documents are submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation, the public
review period shall be at least as long as the period of review by the State Clearinghouse.
(See Guidelines Section 6.06.)
The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration shall contain the following information:
(a) The period during which comments shall be received.
(b) The date, time and place of any public meetings or hearings on the proposed project.
(c) A brief description of the proposed project and its location.
(d) The address where copies of the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all documents referenced in the proposed Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-39- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0 tJ .�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration
(e) The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") list on which the proposed project site
is located, if applicable, and the corresponding information from the applicant's
statement. (See Guidelines Section 2.04.)
(f) The significant effects on the environment, if any, anticipated as a result ofthe proposed
project.
The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study must
reflect the independent judgment of the Commission.
6.05 Posting and Publication of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Commission shall have a copy of the Notice of Intent to Adopt, the Draft Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study posted at the
Commission's offices and made available for public inspection. The Notice must be provided
either twenty (20) or thirty (30) days prior to final adoption of the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Notice must also be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which the
Project is located and must remain posted for a minimum of twenty (20) days, unless
otherwise required by law to be posted for thirty (30) days. The Clerk shall post the Notice
within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.
As stated in Guidelines Section 6.04, notice shall be given by mail to the last known
name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such
notice. In addition, it must be given by at least one of the following procedures:
(a) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by
the proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice shall be
published in the newspaper oflargest circulation from among the newspapers of general
circulation in those areas.
(b) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located.
(c) Direct mailing to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project, as shown
on the latest equalized assessment roll.
The Commission shall consider all comments received during the public review period
for the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Although the Commission
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-40- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
CI.. , 1,33
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2999) Ne ative Declaration
is not required to respond in writing to comments it receives either during or after the public
review period, the Commission may want to provide a written response to all comments if it
will not delay action on the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, since
any comment received prior to final action on the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration can form the basis of a legal challenge. A written response which refutes the
comment or adequately explains the Commission's action in light of the comment, will assist
the Commission in defending against a legal challenge. The Commission shall notify any
public agency which comments on a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
of the public hearing or hearings, if any, on the project for which the Negative Declaration
or Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.
6.06 Submission of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration to State
Clearinghouse. ANegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be submitted
to the State Clearinghouse for circulation in the following situations:
(a) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared by a Lead
Agency that is a state agency.
(b) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared by a public
agency where a state agency is a Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, or otherwise
has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project.
(c) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is for a project identified
in State Guidelines Section 15206 as being of statewide, regional, or areawide
significance.
A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration may also be submitted to
the State Clearinghouse for circulation if a state agency has special expertise with regard to
the environmental impacts involved. When the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period shall
be at least thirty (30) days. When a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
is submitted to the State Clearinghouse, a Notice of Completion (Form "H") should be
included as a cover sheet. When such documents are submitted to the State Clearinghouse,
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-41- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0 j1
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration
the public agency shall include, in addition to the printed copy, a copy of the document in
electronic format on a diskette or by electronic mail transmission if available.
A shorter review period by the State Clearinghouse for a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration can be requested by the decision making body. The
shortened review period shall not be less than twenty (20) days. Such a request must be made
in writing by the Lead Agency to the Office of Planning and Research. The decision making
body may designate by resolution or ordinance an individual authorized to request a shorter
review period. Any approval of a shortened review period must be given prior to, and
reflected in, the public notice. However, a shortened review period shall not be approved by
the Office of Planning and Research for any proposed project of statewide, regional or
areawide environmental significance, as defined by State Guidelines Section 15206.
6.07 Special Notice Requirements for Waste and Fuel BurningProjects. For any waste
burning project, as defined in Guidelines Section 5.09, Notice of Intent (see Guidelines
Section 6.04) shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously
requested it and shall also be given by all three of the procedures listed in Guidelines Section
6.05. In addition, Notice shall be given by direct mailing to the owners and occupants of
property within one-fourth mile of any parcel or parcels on which such a project is located.
These notice requirements apply only to those projects described in Guidelines
Section 5.09. These notice requirements do not preclude the Commission from providing
additional notice by other means if desired.
6.08 Content of Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration must be prepared directly
by or under contract to the Commission and should generally resemble Form "E". It shall
contain the following information:
(a) A brief description ofthe project proposed, including any commonly used name for the
project, if any.
(b) The location of the project and the name of the project proponent.
(c) A finding that the project as proposed will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
(d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -42- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
{ .r 1,{
' V 0 I Li 0
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality AN (1999) Negative Declaration
(e) For a Mitigated Negative Declaration, feasible mitigation measures included in the pro-
ject to substantially lessen or avoid potentially significant effects, which must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Such permit
conditions, agreements, and measures must be consistent with applicable constitutional
requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by
case law.
6.09 Adoption of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Following the
publication, posting or mailing of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, but in no event sooner than twenty (20) days following the
date of such publication, posting or mailing, the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration may be presented to the decision making body at a regular or special meeting.
Prior to adoption, the Commission shall independently review and analyze the Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and find that the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. If the
decision making body finds that the project .will not have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, it shall adopt the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. When
adopting the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Commission shall
specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the
record of proceedings upon which it based its decision.
If the decision making body finds that the proposed project may have a significant effect
on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, it shall order the preparation of a
Draft EIR and the filing of a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR. Recirculation should be
considered if substantial new mitigation is added after public review (see Guidelines Section
6.12).
6.10 Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Program for Mitigated Negative Declaration.
When adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Guidelines Section 6.09, the
Commission shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program to assure that mitigation measures
which are required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment will be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures and implemented by
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-43- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration
the project proponent or other responsible party in a timely manner, in accordance with
conditions of project approval. The Commission shall also specify the location and the
custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which it based
its decision. There is no requirement that the reporting or monitoring program be circulated
for public review; however, the Commission may choose to circulate it for public comments
along with the Negative Declaration. The mitigation measures required to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment must be adopted as conditions of project approval.
This reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to assure compliance during the
implementation or construction of a project and shall otherwise comply with the requirements
described in Guidelines Section 7.31. If a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency has
required that certain conditions be incorporated into the project, the Commission may request
that agency to prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The
Commission shall . also require that prior to the close of the public review period for a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Guidelines Section 6.04), the Responsible or Trustee
Agency submit detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures, or refer the
Commission to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any
mitigation measures submitted to the Commission by a Responsible or Trustee Agency shall
be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are within the Responsible
or Trustee Agency's authority.
Local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for this program.
Therefore, the Commission can charge the project proponent a fee to cover actual costs of
program processing and implementation.
Transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program required
to be adopted by the Commission shall be submitted to the regional transportation planning
agency where the project is located ifthe project impacts have statewide, regional or areawide
significance according to criteria developed pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21083. The transportation planning agency is required by law to adopt guidelines for the
submittal of these reporting or monitoring programs, so the Commission may wish to tailor
its submittal to such guidelines.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-44- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Ac[ (1999) Negative Declaration
6.11 Approval or Disapproval ofProiect. At the time of adoption of a Negative Declaration
or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the decision making body may consider the project for
purposes of approval or disapproval. Prior to approving the project, the decision making
body shall consider the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, together
with any written comments received and considered during the public review period, and shall
approve or disapprove the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. In
making a finding as to whether there is any substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment, the factors listed in Guidelines Section 5.07 should be
considered. (See Guidelines Section 7.29 for approval requirements for facilities which' may
emit hazardous air emissions near schools.)
6.12 Recirculation of Neeative Declaration or Mit gated NeeativeDeclarati on. ANegative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be recirculated when the document must
be substantially revised after the public review period but prior to its adoption. A "substantial
revision" is defined as a new and avoidable significant effect for which mitigation measures
or project revisions must be added in order_to reduce the effect to a level of insignificance.
A "substantial revision" can also include when the Commission determines that the proposed
mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce the potential effects to less than
significance and new measures or revisions must be required.
Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(a) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures.
(b) New project revisions are added in response to written or oral comments on the
project's effects identified in the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.
(c) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration which are not required
by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not
necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
0 u`1 •Ii
-45- .1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qualm Act (1999) Negative Declaration
(d) New information is added to the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Declaration
which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
If, after preparation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
Commission determines that the project requires an EIR, it shall circulate the Draft EIR for
consultation and review and advise reviewers in writing that a proposed Negative Declaration
or Mitigated Declaration had previously been circulated for the project.
6.13 Notice of Determination on a Project for which a Proposed Negative or Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been Approved. Following consideration and approval of a project
for which the Commission is Lead Agency, the decision making body shall order Staff to pre-
pare and file a Notice of Determination (Form "F") which shall contain the following:
(a) An identification of the project including its common name where possible and its
location;
(b) A brief description of the project;
(c) The date on which the Commission approved the project;
(d) The determination of the Commission that the project will not have a significant effect
on the environment;
(e) A statement that a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; and
(f) The address where a copy of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration may be examined.
The Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of each county in which the
project will be located within five working days of project approval. The Commission is
encouraged to make copies of filed notices available in electronic format on the Internet.
Such electronic notices are in addition to the posting requirements of the CEQA Guidelines
and the Public Resources Code. The Clerk must post the Notice of Determination within
twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for
a minimum of thirty (30) days. Thereafter, the Clerk shall return the notice to the
Commission with a notation of the period it was posted. The Commission shall retain the
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -46- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local. Guidelines for lmplementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Nc ative Declaration
notice for not less than nine (9) months. If the project requires discretionary approval from
any State agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with the Office of Planning
and Research. Simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Clerk,
Staff shall cause a copy ofthe Notice ofDetermination to be posted at the Commission office.
When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the Commission
adopts the Negative Declaration, the copy must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within
five (5) days of the Commission's determination. If such a request is made following the
Commission's determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as
possible. The recipients of such documents may be charged a fee reasonably related to the
cost of providing the service.
The filing and posting of a Notice of Determination with the Clerk, and, if necessary,
with the Office ofPlanning and Research, usually starts a thirty (30) day statute of limitations
on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. When separate notices are filed for
successive phases of the same overall project, the 30 -day statute of limitation to challenge the
subsequent phase begins to run when the second notice is filed. Failure to file the Notice
results in a one hundred eighty (180) day statute of limitations.
6.14 Addendum to Negative Declaration. The Commission may prepare an addendum to an
adopted Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. The
Commission may also prepare an addendum to an adopted negative declaration when none
ofthe conditions calling for a subsequent negative declaration have occurred. (See Guidelines
Section 6.15 below.) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be
attached to the adopted Negative Declaration. The Commission shall consider the addendum
with the adopted Negative Declaration prior to project approval.
6.15 Subsequent N gative Declaration. When a Negative Declaration has been adopted for
a project, or when an EIR has been certified, a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR must
be prepared in the following instances:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-47- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0;; .144::U
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (l999) Negative Declaration
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(c) New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified or the Negative Declaration was adopted which shows any of the following:
(1) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR or Negative Declaration;
(2) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(3) Mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s) previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
of the project, but the project proponents declined to adopt the mitigation
measure(s) or alternative(s); or
(4) Mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s) which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s).
The Commission as Lead Agency would then determine whether a Subsequent
EIR, Negative Declaration or addendum would be applicable. Subsequent Negative
Declarations must be given the same notice and public review period as other Negative
Declarations. The Subsequent Negative Declaration shall state where the previous
document is available and can be reviewed.
6.16 Private Project Costs. For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out
the project shall bear all costs incurred by the Commission in preparing the Initial Study and
in preparing and filing the Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -48- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for lmplemenung the
California. Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration
6.17 Filing Fees for Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources. At the time a Notice of
Determination for a Negative Declaration is filed with the Clerk, a fee of $1,250 shall be paid
to the Clerk for projects which will adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. These fees
are collected by the Clerk on behalf of the California Department of Fish and Game ("DFG").
Only one filing fee is required for each project unless the project is tiered or phased and
separate environmental documents are prepared. For projects where a Lead Agency and
Responsible Agencies file separate Notices of Determination, only the Lead Agency is
required to pay the fee.
Note: The Clerk customarily charges a documentary handling fee for each project in
addition to the filing fee specified above. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to help
determine the correct amount.
For private projects, the Commission shall pass these costs on to the project applicant.
No fees are required for projects with a "de minimis" effect on fish and wildlife
resources, or for certain projects undertaken by the DFG and implemented through a contract
with a non-profit entity or local government agency. A project with a "de minimis" effect has
no potential for adverse effect on fish and wildlife. This is an important exception. DFG
considers the following projects as likely to have "de minimis" effects on fish and wildlife,
depending on the specific facts of each project:
(1) Projects which enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats and result in no
accompanying adverse impacts to fish or wildlife;
(2) Lot line adjustments;
(3) Building remodeling;
(4) Annexations;
(5) Redevelopment on existing urban subdivisions with no wildlife habitat;
(6) Infill of undeveloped urban lots;
(7) Adoption of a General Plan, where CEQA requires a subsequent discretionary project
approval before any physical change to natural habitat is permitted.
If the Commission believes that a project will have a "de minimis" effect on wildlife
resources, it should file the Certificate of Fee Exemption attached as Form "L". This form
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-49- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration
requires the Commission to set forth facts in support of the fee exemption. These facts
should include: (1) the name and address of the project proponent; (2) a brief description of
the project and its location; (3) a statement that an initial study has been prepared by the
Commission to evaluate the project's effects on wildlife resources, if any; (4) a declaration
that there is no evidence before the Commission that the project will have any potential for
adverse effect on wildlife resources; and (5) a declaration that the Commission has, on the
basis of substantial evidence, "rebutted" the presumption of adverse effect contained in the
regulations. A presumption of adverse effect occurs if the project has the potential for
adverse effects on the fish and wildlife resources as listed on Form "L". To rebut the
presumption of adverse effect, the Commission should explain in the declaration why the
project would not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife and reference any supporting
evidence. These findings should be made at the time of approval of the Negative Declaration
and attached to Form "L" when submitted to the County. Two copies of this form must be
filed with the Notice of Determination in order to obtain the fee exemption.
If the Commission believes that a project has been undertaken by the DFG, that the
project's costs are payable from one or more of the sources indicated in the Fish and Game
Code, and that the project is being implemented through a contract with a non-profit entity
or a local government agency, the DFG filing does not apply. Since the DFG has not yet
adopted regulations to govern this exemption, including a new "Certificate of Fee
Exemption," the Commission may wish to use Form L and make appropriate modifications
to reflect this exemption.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-50- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
GL,` 1 Li 8
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qualtry Act f 1999 o Environmental Impact Report
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
7.01 Decision to Prepare an EIR. An EIR shall be prepared whenever there is substantial
evidence in light of the whole record which supports a fair argument that a project may have
a significant effect on the environment. (See Guidelines Sections 9.35 and 9.37.) The record
may include the Initial Study or other documents or studies prepared to assess the project's
environmental impacts.
7.02 Contractine for Preparation of EfRs. If a Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR is prepared
under a contract to the Commission, the contract must be executed within forty-five (45) days
from the date on which the Commission sends a Notice ofPreparation. The Commission may
take longer to execute the contract if the project applicant and the Commission mutually
agree to an extension of the 45 -day time limit.
The Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR prepared under contract must be the Commission's
product. Staff, together with such consultant help as may be required, shall independently
review and analyze the Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR to verify its accuracy, objectivity and
completeness prior to presenting it to the decision making body. The Draft EIR, EIR or
Focused EIR made available for public review must reflect the independent judgment of the
Commission. Staff may require such information and data from the person or entity
proposing to carry out the project as it deems necessary for completion of the Draft EIR, EIR
or Focused EIR.
7.03 Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR. After Staff determines that an EIR will be required
for a proposed project, the Commission as Lead Agency shall prepare and send a Notice of
Preparation (Form "G") to each Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency involved with the
project. Responsible and Trustee Agencies have thirty (30) days to respond to the Notice of
Preparation. When one or more state agencies will be a Responsible Agency, the Commission
shall also send a copy of the Notice of Preparation (which also identifies the Responsible
Agencies and Trustee Agencies to which the Notice was sent) to the Office of Planning and
Research. The Commission shall send copies of the Notice of Preparation by certified mail
or any other method of transmittal which provides it with a record that the Notice was
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -51- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0.1 4
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Qualny Act (1999) _ Environmental Impact Report
received. The Notice must also be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which
the project is located for thirty (30) days. The Clerk shall post the Notice within twenty-four
(24) hours of receipt.
At a minimum, the Notice of Preparation shall include:
(a) A description of the project;
(b) The location of the project indicated either on an attached map (preferably a copy of
the USGS 15' or 7W topographical map identified by quadrangle name) or by a street
address in an urban area;
(c) The probable environmental effects of the project;
(d) The name and address of the consulting firm retained to prepare the Draft EIR, if
applicable; and
(e) The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") list on which the proposed site is
located, if applicable, and the corresponding information from the applicant's statement.
(See Guidelines Section 2.04.)
7.04 Preparation ofDraft EIR. The Commission as Lead Agency is responsible for preparing
a Draft EIR, and may begin preparation immediately without awaiting responses to the Notice
ofPreparation. However, information communicated to the Commission not later than thirty
(30) days after receipt of the Commission's Notice of Preparation shall be included in the
Draft EIR.
7.05 Consultation with Other Agencies and Persons. To expedite consultation in response
to the Notice of Preparation, the Commission as Lead Agency, a Responsible Agency, or a
project applicant may request a meeting among the agencies involved to assist the
Commission in determining the scope and content of the environmental information that
Responsible Agencies may require. The Commission must convene the meeting as soon as
possible but no later than 30 days after the request. Prior to completion of the Draft EIR, the
Commission shall consult with each Responsible Agency and any public agency which has
jurisdiction by law over the project. The Commission shall also consult with any city or
county which borders the project or within which the project is located, unless otherwise
designated annually by agreement between the Commission and any other city or county. The
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-52- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
C; U
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
Commission may also consult with any individual who has special expertise with respect to
any environmental impacts involved with a project. The Commission may also consult
directly with any person or organization it believes will be concerned with the environmental
effects of the project including 'any interested individuals and organizations of which the
Commission is reasonably aware. The purpose of this consultation is to "scope" the EIR's
range of analysis.
For a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance as defined in State
Guidelines Section 15206, the Commission shall consult with transportation planning agencies
and public agencies which have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions that could
be affected by the project. Consultation shall be conducted so that the Commission may
obtain information concerning a project's effects on major local arterials, public transit,
freeways, highways, and rail transit service within the jurisdiction of a transportation planning
agency or a public agency consulted by the Commission . A transportation planning agency
or public agency which provides information to the Commission shall be notified of, and
provided with copies of, environmental documents pertaining to the project.
The Commission as Lead Agency may charge and collect from the applicant a fee not
to exceed the actual cost of the consultations. A Responsible Agency or other public agency
shall only make comments regarding those activities within its area of expertise or which are
required to be carried out or approved by it. These comments must be supported by specific
documentation. Any mitigation measures submitted to the Commission by a Responsible or
Trustee Agency shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are
within the Responsible or Trustee Agency's authority. Caltrans may require the Commission
as Lead Agency to call at least one scoping session before an EIR is prepared for projects
which may affect highways or facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
For projects where federal involvement might require preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement ("EIS") under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the
Commission as Lead Agency shall consult with the appropriate federal agencies as provided
in Section 15110 and Sections 15220-15228 of the State Guidelines.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -53- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
'',2;Ui3
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
7.06 Early Consultation on Projects Involving Permit Issuance. Where the project involves
issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use by one or more
public agencies, the Commission, upon request of the applicant, shall meet with the applicant
prior to the filing of the application regarding the range of actions, potential alternatives,
mitigation measures and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. The
Commission may also consult with concerned persons identified by the applicant and persons
who have made written requests to be consulted. Such requests must be made not later than
thirty (30) days after the Commission's decision to prepare an EIR.
7.07 Airport Land Use Plan. When the Commission prepares an EIR for a project within the
boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if such a plan has not been adopted
for a project within two (2) nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, the
Commission shall utilize the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans'
Division of Aeronautics to assist in the preparation of the EIR relative to potential airport or
related safety hazards and noise problems.
7.08 _General Aspects of an EIR. Both a Draft and Final EIR must contain the information
outlined in Guidelines Section 7.12. Each element must be covered, and when elements are
not separated into distinct sections, the document must state where in the document each
element is covered.
The body of the EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, diagrams and
similar relevant information. Highly technical and specialized analyses and data should be
included in appendices. Appendices may be prepared in separate volumes, but must be
equally available to the public for examination. All documents used in preparation of the EIR
must be referenced. An EIR shall not include "trade secrets," locations of archaeological sites
and sacred lands, or any other information subject to the disclosure restrictions of the Public
Records Act (Government Code Section 6254).
The EIR should discuss environmental effects in proportion to their severity and
probability of occurrence. Effects dismissed in the Initial Study as clearly insignificant and
unlikely to occur need not be discussed.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-54- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
VtlL1iJti
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Im acct Report
The Initial Study should be used to focus the EIR so that the EIR identifies and
discusses only the specific environmental problems or aspects of the project which have been
identified as potentially significant or important. A copy of the Initial Study shall be attached
to the EIR to provide a basis for limiting the impacts discussed.
The EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reason for determining that
various effects of a project that could possibly be considered significant were not found to be
significant and consequently were not discussed in detail in the Em. The Commission should
also note any conclusion by it that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation.
The EIR should omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and emphasize feasible
mitigation measures and alternatives to projects.
7.09 Use of Registered Consultants in Preparins; EIRs. An EIR is not a technical document
that can be prepared only by a registered consultant or professional. However, state statutes
may provide that only registered professionals can prepare certain technical studies which will
be used in or which will control the detailed design, construction, or operation of the pro-
posed project and which will be prepared in support of an EIR.
7.10 Incorporation by Reference. An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of
another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public.
Any incorporated document shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the
EIR. Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, that document shall be
made available to the public for inspection at the Commission's offices. The EIR shall state
where incorporated documents will be available for inspection.
Where an EIR uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the referenced
document shall be briefly summarized where possible, or briefly described if the data or
information cannot be summarized. When information from an EIR that has previously been
reviewed through the state review system ("State Clearinghouse") is incorporated by the
Commission, the state identification number ofthe incorporated document should be included
in the summary or text of the Em.
7.11 Standards for Adequacy of an EIR. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree
of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -55- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
u'it!L3.
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
decision which takes into account the environmental consequences of the project. The
evaluation of environmental effects need not be exhaustive, but must be within the scope of
what is reasonably feasible. The EIR should be written and presented in such a way that it
can be understood by governmental decision makers and members ofthe public. A good faith
effort at completeness is necessary. The adequacy of an EIR is assessed in terms of what is
reasonable in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its
likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not
require a Lead Agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and
experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors.
There is no need to unreasonably delay adoption of an EIR in order to include results
of studies in progress, even if those studies will shed some additional light on subjects related
to the project.
7.12 Form and Content of EIR. The text of the EIR should normally be less than 150 pages.
For proposals of unusual scope or complexity, the EIR should normally be less than 300
pages. The required contents of an ER are set forth in Sections 15122 through 15132 of the
State Guidelines. Briefly summarizing each of those requirements, an EIR shall contain:
(a) A table of contents or an index.
(b) A brief summary of the proposed project and its environmental impacts.
(c) A description of the proposed project, including its underlying purpose and a list of
permit and other approvals required to implement the project. (See Guidelines Section
7.16 regarding analysis of future project expansion.)
(d) A description of the project's physical environmental conditions from both a local and
regional perspective at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice
ofPreparation is published, at the time environmental analysis begins. (State Guidelines
Section 15125.) This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline
physical conditions by which the Commission determines whether an impact is
significant.
(e) A discussion of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable
general and regional plans.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-56- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0 1::
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (19991 Environmental Impact Report
(f)
A description of the direct and indirect significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project explaining which, if any, can be avoided or mitigated to a level of
insignificance, indicating reasons that various possible significant effects were
determined not to be significant and denoting any significant effects which are
unavoidable or could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Direct and indirect
significant effects shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to
both short-term and long-term effects.
An analysis of a range of alternatives to the proposed project which could feasibly attain
the project's objectives as discussed in Guidelines Section 7.15.
A description of any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented if, and only if, the EIR is
being prepared in connection with:
(1) The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a
public agency;
(2) The adoption by a Local Agency Formation Commission of a resolution making
determinations; or
(3) A project which will be subject to the requirement for preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act.
(I) An analysis of the growth -inducing impacts of the proposed action. The discussion
should include ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth,
or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment.
(j) A discussion of any significant, reasonably anticipated future developments and the
cumulative effects of all proposed and anticipated action as discussed in Guidelines
Section 7.16.
(k) In certain situations, a regional analysis should be completed for certain impacts, such
as air quality.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -57- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
_J;)
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) _ Environmental 1m ct Report
(1) A discussion of any economic or social effects, to the extent that they cause or may be
used to determine significant environmental impacts.
(m) A statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a
project were determined not to be significant and, therefore, were not discussed in the
EIR.
(n) The identity of all federal, state or local agencies or other organizations and private
individuals consulted in preparing the EIR, and the identity of the persons, firm or
agency preparing the EIR, by contract or other authorization. To the fullest extent
possible, the Commission should integrate CEQA review with these related
environmental review and consultation requirements.
(o) A discussion of those potential effects of the proposed project on the environment
which the Commission has determined are or may be significant. The discussion on
other effects may be limited to a brief explanation as to why those effects are not
potentially significant.
(p) A description of feasible measures, as set forth in Guidelines Section 7.14, which could
minimize significant adverse impacts.
7.13 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts. An EIR must discuss cumulative impacts when the
project's incremental effect is "cumulatively considerable" as defined in Guidelines Section
9.07. Where the Commission is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not
"cumulatively considerable," it need not consider that effect significant, but must briefly
describe the basis for this conclusion. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively
considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation
measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The Commission must identify facts and
analysis supporting its conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.
(a) A cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the
combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing
related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from
the project evaluated in the EIR.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
3 1 6
-58- c1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
(b) An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact
is de minimis and thus is not significant. A de minimis contribution means that the
environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed
project is implemented.
(c) The discussion of cumulative impacts in an EIR must focus on the cumulative impact
to which the identified other projects contribute, rather than the attributes of other
projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The discussion of
significant cumulative impacts must meet either of the following elements:
(1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects causing related or cumulative
impacts including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the
Commission; or
(2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related
planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been
adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide
conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
(d) When utilizing a list, as suggested above, factors to consider when determining whether
to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource
being examined and the location and type of project. Location may be important, for
example, when water quality impacts are involved since projects outside the watershed
would probably not contribute to a cumulative effect. Project type may be important,
for example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode
of traffic.
(e) The Commission should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the
cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation
used.
(f) A cumulative impacts discussion contained in previously certified EIRs may be
incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions for tiering and program EIRs. No
further cumulative impacts analysis is required when a project is consistent with a
general, specific, master or comparable programmatic plan and the Commission
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -59- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
063157
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Environmental Impact Report
determines that the regional or area wide cumulative impacts of the proposed project
have already been adequately addressed in a certified EIR for that plan.
(g) If a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan,
zoning, action, or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or action,
then an EIR should not further analyze that cumulative impact.
7.14 Analysis of Mitigation Measures. The discussion of mitigation measures in an EIR
must distinguish between measures proposed by project proponents and other measures
proposed by Lead, Responsible or Trust Agencies. This discussion shall identify mitigation
measures for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be disclosed
and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation of
mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may
specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effects of the project and
which may be accomplished in more than one specified way.
If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those
that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall
be disclosed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project itself
Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements,
or other legally binding instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulating,
or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy,
regulation, or project design. Mitigation measures must also be consistent with all applicable
constitutional requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards.
Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation; restoration, preservation,
conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, the project's impact on the historical resource
shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-60- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
1i3iJJ
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Environmental Impact Reoort
The Commission should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any
historical resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors must be considered and
discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site:
(a) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological
sites.
(b) Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;
(2) Incorporation of sites within parks, green space, or other open spaces;
(3) Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before
.building tenths courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site;
(4) Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery
plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential
information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to
excavation. Such studies must be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional
Information Center.
Data recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the Commission
determines that existing testing or studies have adequately recovered the scientifically
consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource, provided
that the determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the
California Historical Resources Regional Information Center.
7.15 Analysis of Alternatives in an EIR. The alternatives analysis must describe and evaluate
the comparative merits of 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
which would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. An EIR
need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, and it need not consider
alternatives which are infeasible. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially
feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -61- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Environmental Impact Report
Purpose of the Alternatives Analysis: An EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid
the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. For this reason, a
discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect ofthe project, even ifthese
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would
be more costly.
Selection of a Range of Reasonable Alternatives: The range of potential alternatives
to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic
purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant
effects, even if those alternatives would be more costly or would impede to some degree the
attainment of the project's objectives. 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 Commission and rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and
briefly explain the reasons for rejection. Additional information explaining the choice of
alternatives should be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be
used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (a) failure to meet
most of the basic project objectives; (b) infeasibility; or (c) inability to avoid significant
environmental impacts.
Evaluation of Alternatives: The EIR shall include sufficient information about each
alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed
project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects
of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause
one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as
proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed but in less detail than the
significant effects of the project as proposed.
The Rule of Reason: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a
"rule of reason" which courts have held means that an alternatives discussion must be
reasonable in scope and content. Therefore, the EIR must set forth only those alternatives
necessary to permit public participation, informed decision making, and a reasoned choice.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-62- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP
UUU- 60
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) _ Environmental Impact Report
The alternatives shall be 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 the Commission determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably
ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
Feasibility of Alternatives: The factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives include: site suitability; economic viability; availability
of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans or regulatory limitations; jurisdictional
boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context);
and whether the proponent already owns the alternative site or can reasonably acquire,
control or otherwise have access to the site. No one factor establishes a fixed limit on the
scope of reasonable alternatives.
Alternative Locations: The first step in the alternative location analysis is to determine
whether any of the significant effects ofthe project could be avoided or substantially lessened
by putting the project in another location. _ This is the km question in this analysis. Only
locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project
need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.
The second step in this analysis is to determine whether any of the alternative locations
are feasible. If the Commission concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must
disclose its reasons, and it should include them in the EIR. Where a previous document has
sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts
for a project with the same basic purpose, the Commission should review the previous
document. To the extent the circumstances have remained substantially the same with respect
to an alternative, the EIR may rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility
of the potential project alternative.
The "No Project" Alternative: The specific alternative of "no project" must be
evaluated along with its impacts. The purpose of describing and analyzing the no project
alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed
project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -63- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0uu , C.f.
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
analysis, therefore, is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project's
environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental
setting analysis which does establish that baseline.
A discussion of the "no project" alternative should proceed along one of two lines:
(a) When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or
ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing
plan, policy or operation into the future. Typically, this is a situation where other
projects initiated under the existing plan will continue while the new plan is developed.
Thus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be
compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan.
(b) If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development
project on identifiable property, the "no project" alternative is the circumstance under
which the project does not proceed. This discussion would compare the environmental
effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects
which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project would result
in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this "no
project" consequence should be discussed.
After defining the no project alternative, the Commission should proceed to analyze the
impacts of the no project alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to
occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and
consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the "no project"
alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify another
environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives.
Remote or Speculative Alternatives: An EIR need not consider an alternative whose
effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
7.16 Analysis of Future Expansion. An EIR must include an analysis of the environmental
effects of future expansion (or other similar future modifications) if there is credible and
substantial evidence that:
RCTGRVPUB/313897
-64- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qrualiry Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
(a) The future expansion or action is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial
project; and
(b) The future expansion or action is likely to change the scope or nature of the initial
project or its environmental effects.
Absent these two circumstances, future expansion of a project need not be discussed.
CEQA does not require speculative discussion of future development which is unspecific or
uncertain. However, if future action is not considered now, it must be considered and envi-
ronmentally evaluated before it is actually implemented.
7.17 Notice of Completion of Draft EIR. Upon completion of a Draft EIR, Staff shall file
a Notice of Completion (Form "H") with the Office of Planning and Research in a printed
hard copy or in electronic form on a diskette or by electronic mail transmission. The
Commission is encouraged to make copies of filed notices available in electronic format on
the Internet. Such electronic postings are in addition to the procedures required by the
CEQA Guidelines and the Public Resources Code. The Notice shall contain a brief
description of the proposed project, the location of the proposed project, current land use,
development type and project issues discussed in the EIR.
The Commission shall provide public notice of the completion of a Draft EIR at the
same time it sends a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research. The
Notice of Availability of Draft EIR (Form "K") shall specify the period during which
comments will be received on the Draft EIR, the date, time and place of any .public hearings
on the proposed project, a brief description of the project and its location, the significant
effects on the environment, if any, anticipated as a result ofthe project, and the address where
copies of the Draft EIR and all documents referenced in the Draft EIR are available for
review. Public agencies are encouraged to make copies of filed Notices of Completion
available in electronic format on the Internet.
Notice shall be given to the last known name and address of all organizations and indivi-
duals who have previously requested it. In addition, notice shall be given by at least one of
the following procedures:
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -05- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Repots
(a) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by
the proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice shall be
published in the newspaper oflargest circulation from among the newspapers ofgeneral
circulation in those areas.
(b) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located.
(c) Direct mailing "to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project, as
identified on the latest equalized assessment roll.
The Notice shall be posted in the office ofthe Clerk in each county in which the project
is located for a period of thirty (30) days. The Clerk must post the Notice within twenty-four
(24) hours of receipt. Notice shall be mailed to any person who has filed a written request
with the Commission. The Commission may require these requests to be renewed annually
and may charge a fee for the reasonable cost of providing this service. A project will not be
invalidated due to a failure to send a requested notice provided there has been substantial
compliance with these notice provisions.
Copies of the Draft EIR shall also be made available at the Commission office for
review by members of the general public. Any person obtaining a copy of the Draft EIR shall
reimburse the Commission for the actual cost of its reproduction. Copies of the Draft EIR
should also be furnished to appropriate public library systems.
7.18 Submission of Draft EIR to State Clearinghouse. A Draft EIR must be submitted to
the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies in the following situations:
(a) The Draft EIR is prepared by a Lead Agency which is a state agency.
(b) The Draft EIR is prepared by a public agency where a state agency is a Responsible
Agency, Trustee Agency, or otherwise has jurisdiction by law with respect to the
project.
(c) The Draft EIR is for a project identified in State Guidelines Section 15206 as being of
statewide, regional, or areawide significance.
A Draft EIR may be submitted to the State Clearinghouse where a state agency has
special expertise with regard to the environmental impacts involved.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-66- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
' •"1
v�1iU`t
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Environmental im acct Report
Where the Draft EIR will be reviewed through the State review process handled by the
State Clearinghouse, use a Notice of Completion (Form "H") as a cover sheet. Ten copies
of the documents must be sent to the State Clearinghouse for circulation.
7.19 Special Notice Requirements for Waste and Fuel Burning Projects. For any waste
burning project, as defined in Guidelines Section 5.09, Notice of Completion shall be given
to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested notice. In addition, Notice
shall be given by direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property within one-fourth
mile of any parcel or parcels on which such a project is located.
7.20 Review of Draft EIR by Other Agencies and Persons. Upon the filing and posting of
a Notice of Completion, Staff shall consult with and obtain comments from each Responsible
Agency, Trustee Agency, and any other public agency having jurisdiction by law over
resources which may be affected by the project. Those public agencies having jurisdiction by
law over the project shall include, but are not necessarily limited to:
1) Any city or county bordering the project area;
2) Transportation planning agencies and public agencies with transportation facilities
located within the project area;
3) The State Department of Water Resources, when a project is located within one mile
of a facility of the State Water Resources Development System.
Staff may also consult with and obtain comments from any person known to have
special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved whose comments relative
to the Draft EIR would be desirable. Staff may also consult with any member of the public
who has filed a written request for notice with the Commission and any person whom the
project applicant believes will be concerned with the environmental.effects of the project.
7.21 Time for Review of Draft EIR: Failure to Comment. A period of between (30) and
sixty (60) days from the filing of the Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR shall be allowed
for review of and comment on the Draft EIR, except in unusual situations. If a state agency
is a Responsible Agency, or if the Draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse, the
review period shall be at least forty-five (45) days. When a Draft E1R is submitted to the
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -67- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qualiry Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period shall be at least as long as the period
of review established by the State Clearinghouse.
A shorter review period of the Draft EIR by the State Clearinghouse can be requested
by the Commission ; however, a shortened review period shall not be less than thirty (30) days
for a Draft EIR. Any request for a shortened review period must be made in writing by the
Commission to the Office of Planning and Research. The Commission may designate a
person to make these requests.
A shortened review period is not available for any proposed project of statewide,
regional or areawide environmental significance as determined pursuant to State Guidelines
Section 15206. Any approval of a shortened review period shall be given prior to, and
reflected in, the public notices.
In the event a public agency, group, or person whose comments on a Draft EIR are
solicited fails to comment within the required time period, it shall be presumed, absent a
written request for a specific extension of time for review and comment, together with the
reasons for the request, that such agency, group, or person has no comment to make.
Continued planning activities concerning the proposed project, short offormal approval,
may continue during the period set aside for review and comment on the Draft EIR.
7.22 Public Hearing on Draft EIR. A public hearing on the Draft EIR document is not
required but may be held by the decision making body either in separate proceedings or in
conjunction with other proceedings of the Commission. The procedures for the manner of
conducting the public hearings shall be described at the time the hearing convenes.
The Draft EIR should be used as the outline for discussion at the public hearing. If a
public hearing is held, it shall be conducted at least fourteen (14) days after the filing of the
Notice of Completion, but in no event after the time set for expiration ofthe comment period.
Public notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be posted in a conspicuous
location at the Commission office and published in a newspaperof general circulation at least
fourteen (14) days in advance of the hearing. The Notice also shall indicate the locations at
which the Draft EIR is available for review. To the extent that the Commission maintains an
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-68- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
C'li�lIU
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
Internet web site, notice of all public hearings should be made available in electronic format
on that site.
7.23 Response to Comments on Draft EIR. The Commission as Lead Agency shall evaluate
any comments on environmental issues received during the public review period for the Draft
EIR and shall prepare a written response to those comments. As stated below, the
Commission should also consider evaluating and responding to any comments received after
the public review period. The response of the Commission may take the form of a revision
of the Draft EIR, an attachment to the Draft EIR, or some other oral or written response
which is adequate under the circumstances of the project. The response must describe the
disposition of any significant environmental issues raised in the comment, such as revisions
to the proposed project which mitigate anticipated impacts or objections. Ifthe Commission's
position is at variance with specific recommendations or suggestions raised in the comment,
the Commission's response must detail the reasons why such recommendations or suggestions
were not accepted. Moreover, the Commission shall respond to any specific suggestions for
project alternatives or mitigation measures for significant impacts, unless such alternatives or
mitigation measures are facially infeasible. The response shall contain recommendations,
when appropriate, to alter the project as described in the Draft EIR as a result of an analysis
of the comments received.
At least ten (10) days prior to certifying a Final EIR, the Commission shall provide a
written response to any public agency which has made comments on the Draft EIR. The
Commission is not required to respond to comments received after the public review period.
However, the Commission should consider responding to all comments if it will not delay
action on the Final EIR, since any comment received before final action on the EIR can form
the basis of a legal challenge. A written response which refutes the comment or adequately
explains the Commission's action in light of the comment, will assist the Commission in
defending against a legal challenge.
7.24 Preparation and Contents of Final EIR. Following the receipt of any comments on the
Draft EIR as required herein, such comments shall be evaluated by Staff and a Final EIR shall
be prepared.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -69- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for lmplemenung the
California Environtraental Quality Act (1999) _ Environmental Impact Report
The Final EIR shall meet all requirements of Guidelines Sections 7.11 and 7.12 and shall
consist of the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft, a section containing either verbatim or in
summary the comments and recommendations received through the review and consultation
process, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft, and a
section containing the responses of the Commission to the significant environmental points
raised in the review and consultation process.
7.25 Recirculation When New Information is Added to EIR. When significant new
information is added to the EIR after notice and consultation, but before certification, the
Commission shall give Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR again pursuant to Guidelines
Section 7.03 and shall recirculate the Draft EIR for another public review period. The term
"information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional
data or other information. The Commission shall also consult again with those persons
contacted pursuant to Guidelines Section 7.17 before certifying the EIR.
New information is significant only when the EIR is changed in a way that would
deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
environmental effect of a project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect,
including a feasible project alternative, that the project proponents decline to implement.
Recirculation is required, for example, when: (1) new information added to an EIR discloses
(a) a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented, (b) a significant increase in the severity of an
environmental impact (unless mitigation measures are also adopted that reduce the impact to
a level of insignificance), or (c) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly
would lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project,. but which the project
proponents decline to adopt; or (2) the Draft EIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate
and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely
clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. If the revision
is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the Commission as Lead Agency need only
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -70- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Im ct Re rt
recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified. A decision to not recirculate an
EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Recirculating an EIR can result in the Commission receiving more than one set of
comments from reviewers. When the EIR is substantially revised and the entire EIR is
recirculated, the Commission may require that reviewers submit new comments and need not
respond to those comments received during the earlier circulation period. The Commission
shall advise reviewers, either within the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the
revised EIR, that although part of the administrative record, the previous comments do not
require a written response in the final EIR, and that new comments must be submitted for the
revised EIR. The Commission need only respond to those comments submitted in response
to the recirculated revised EIR. The Commission must send to every agency, person, or
organization that commented on the prior draft EIR a notice of the recirculation specifying
that new comments must be submitted.
. When the EIR is revised only in part and the -Commission is recirculating only the
revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the Commission may request that reviewers limit their
comments to the revised chapters or portions. The Commission need only respond to (I)
comments received during the initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of
the document that were not revised and recirculated; and (ii) comments received during the
recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions of the earlier EIR that were revised
and recirculated. The Commission's request that reviewers limit.the scope of their comments
shall be included either within the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised
EIR.
When recirculating a revised EIR, either in whole or in part, the Commission must, in
the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the
previously circulated draft EIR.
7.26 Certification of Final EIR. Following the preparation of the Final EIR, Staff shall
review the Final EIR and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors regarding
whether the Final EIR is in order and whether it has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, the State Guidelines and the Commission's Guidelines. The Final EIR and Staff
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -71- 4111999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (19991 Environmental Impact Report
recommendation shall then be presented to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors
shall independently review and analyze the Final EIR, and determine that the Final EIR
reflects its independent judgment. The Board of Directors shall certify and find that: (1) the
Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines and the
Commission's Guidelines; (2) the Board ofDirectors has reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR
before approving the project; and (3) the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the
Commission .
7.27 Consideration of EIR Before Approval or Disapproval of Pro ect. The EIR shall be
reviewed and considered by the decision making body before it approves or disapproves the
proposed project for which the EIR was prepared. The decision making body may then
proceed to consider the proposed project for purposes of approval or disapproval. Separately
or in conjunction with its action approving or disapproving the project, the decision making
body shall certify that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR.
7.28 Findings. The decision making body shall not approve or carry out a project if a
completed EIR identifies at least one significant effect of the project unless it makes one or
more of the following written findings for each such significant effect, accompanied by a
statement of the facts supporting each finding. Findings must be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(a) That changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, and which are fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. These
mitigation measures must be expressly adopted or rejected in the EIR. There should
be a description of the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures.
Passing references to mitigation measures in other sections of the EIR, or in a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, are not sufficient.
(b) That such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the Commission. Such changes have been, or can and should be,
adopted by that other agency.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-72- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
(c) That specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final
EIR. The decision making body must make specific written findings stating why it has
rejected an alternative to the project as infeasible.
If any of the proposed alternatives could avoid or lessen an adverse impact for which
no mitigation measures are proposed, the Commission shall analyze the feasibility of such
alternative(s). If the project is to be approved without including such alternative(s), the
Commission shall find that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and shall
list such considerations before such approval.
The decision making body shall not approve or carry out a project as proposed unless
(1) the project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment or (2) its
significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened (as determined
through one or more of the findings indicated above), and any remaining, unavoidable
significant effects have been found acceptable because of facts and circumstances described
in a Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Guidelines Section 7.30). Statements in the
Draft EIR or comments on the Draft EIR are not determinative of whether the project will
have significant effects.
When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of this section, the Commission
as Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material
which constitute the record of proceedings upon which it based its decision.
7.29 Special Findings Required for Facilities Which May Emit Hazardous Air Emissions
Near Schools. No Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration shall be approved
for any project involving the construction or alteration of a facility within one-fourth of a mile
of a school which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely hazardous air
emissions as defined below or which would handle acutely hazardous material or a mixture
containing acutely hazardous material in a quantity equal to or greater than that specified in
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -73_ 6'1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qualtry Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
Health and Safety Code Section 25536(a), which may impose a health or safety hazard to
persons who would attend or would be employed at the school unless both of the following
occur:
(a) The Commission, as Lead Agency, in preparing the Environmental Impact Report or
Negative Declaration has consulted with the school district or districts having
jurisdiction over the school regarding the potential impact of the project on the school
when circulating the proposed Negative Declaration or Draft EIR for review; and
(b) The school district has been given written notification of the project not less than thirty
(30) days prior to the proposed approval or certification of the Environmental Impact
Report or Negative Declaration.
(c) Definitions:
(1) "Hazardous air emissions" means any substance released into the air which is on
the list prepared pursuant to Section 25532(a) and Section 44321 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(2) "Acutely hazardous air emissions" means any substance released into the air
defined by Section 25532(a) of the Health and Safety Code.
7.30 Statement of Overriding Considerations. Whenever a project approved by the decision
making body will cause unmitigated significant environmental effects, the decision making
body must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations allows the decision making body to approve a project despite one or more
unmitigated significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations can be made only if feasible project alternatives or mitigation
measures do not exist to reduce the environmental impact(s) to a level of insignificance and
the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse environmental effect(s). The feasibility of
project alternatives or mitigation measures is determined by whether the project alternative
or mitigation measure can be accomplished within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors. Project benefits
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -74- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for implementingthe
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Retort
which are appropriate to consider include the economic, environmental, technological and
social value of the project.
Substantial evidence in the entire record must justify the decision making body's
findings and its use of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. If the decision making
body makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement must be included in the
record of the project approval and mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
7.31 Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Program for FIR. When making the findings
required by subdivision (a) of Guidelines Section 7.28, the Commission must do all of the
following:
(a) adopt a reporting or monitoring program to assure that mitigation measures which are
required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment will be implemented
by the project proponent or other responsible party in a timely manner, in accordance
with conditions of project approval;
(b) make sure all conditions and mitigation measures are feasible and fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Such permit conditions,
agreements, and measures must be consistent with applicable constitutional
requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by
the case; and
(c) specify the location and the custodian of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the Commission based its decision in the resolution certifying
the OR
There is no requirement that the reporting or monitoring program be circulated for
public review; however, the Commission may choose to circulate it for public comments
along with the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures required to mitigate or avoid significant
effects on the environment must be adopted as conditions of project approval.
The adequacy of a mitigation monitoring program is determined by the "rule of reason."
This means that a mitigation monitoring program does not need to provide every imaginable
measure. It needs only to provide measures that are reasonably feasible.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-75- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
000173
Local Guidelines for lmplemenurrg the
California Envwronmernal Qualiry Act (1999) Environmental lm t rt
This reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to assure compliance during the
implementation or construction of a project. If a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency has
required that certain conditions be incorporated into the project, the Commission may request
that agency to prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The
Commission shall also require that prior to the close of the public review period for a Draft
ER (see Guidelines • Section 7.21), the Responsible or Trustee Agency submit detailed
performance objectives for mitigation measures, or refer the Commission to appropriate,
readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to
the Commission by a Responsible or Trustee Agency shall be limited to measures which
mitigate impacts to resources which are within the Responsible or Trustee Agency's authority.
Transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program required
to be adopted by the Commission shall be submitted to the regional transportation planning
agency where the project is located if the project impacts have statewide, regional or area -
wide significance according to criteria developed pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21083. The transportation planning agency. is required by law to adopt guidelines for the
submittal of these reporting or monitoring programs, so the Commission may wish to tailor
its submittal to such guidelines.
Local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for this program.
Therefore, the Commission will charge the project proponent a fee to cover actual costs of
program processing and implementation.
The Commission may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to an agency or
to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been
completed, the Commission remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the
mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.
The Commission may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on
mitigation, or both. "Reporting"is defined as a written compliance review that is presented
to the Council or an authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages
during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. Reporting is
suited to projects which have readily measurable or quantitative mitigation measures or which
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
I w
AMMO
U J
-76- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report
already involve regular review. "Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of
project oversight. Monitoring is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures which
may exceed the expertise of the Commission to oversee, are expected to be implemented over
a period of time, or require careful implementation to assure compliance.
At its discretion, the Commission may adopt standardized policies and requirements to
guide individually adopted programs. Standardized policies or requirements for monitoring
and reporting may describe, but are not limited to:
(a) The relative responsibilities of various departments within the Commission for various
aspects of the program.
(b) The responsibilities of the project proponent.
(c) Guidelines adopted by the Commission to govern preparation of programs.
(d) General standards for determining project compliance with the mitigation measures and
related conditions of approval.
(e) Enforcement procedures for noncompliance, including provisions for administrative
appeal.
(f) Process for informing the Council and staff of the relative success of mitigation
measures and using those results to improve future mitigation measures.
When a project is of statewide, regional, or areawide importance, any transportation
information generated by a program must be submitted to the transportation planning agency
in the region where the project is located.
7.32 Notice of Determination. Following consideration and approval of a project for which
the Commission is the Lead Agency, the decision making body shall order'Staff to prepare,
certify and file, a Notice of Determination (Form "F") which shall contain the following:
(a) An identification of the project by its common name where possible and its location.
(b) A brief description of the project.
(c) The date when the Commission approved the project.
(d) Whether the project in its approved form will have a significant effect on the
environment.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 _77_ °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
000175
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Environmental Impact Report
(e) A statement that an EIR was prepared and certified pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA.
(f) Whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.
(g) Whether findings and/or a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the
project.
(h) The address where a copy of the EIR (with comments and responses) and the record
of project approval may be examined by the general public.
The Notice of Determination shall then be filed, within five working days of the action, with
the Clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The Clerk must post the Notice
of Determination within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. The Notice must be posted in the
office of the Clerk for a minimum of thirty (30) days. Simultaneously with the filing of the
Notice of Determination with the Clerk, Staff shall cause a copy of such Notice to be posted
at the Commission office. If the project requires discretionary approval from a state agency,
the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with the Office of Planning and Research.
The filing and posting by the Clerk.Qf the Notice of Determination usually starts a thirty
(30) day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. If a Notice
of Determination is not filed, a one hundred eighty (180) day statute of limitations will apply.
When a request has been made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the
Commission certifies the Final EIR, such Notice must be mailed, first class postage prepaid,
within five (5) days of the Commission's determination. If such a request is made following
the Commission's determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon
as possible.
7.33 Disposition of a Final EIR. The Commission shall file a copy of the Final EIR with the
appropriate planning agency of any city or county where significant effects on the
environment may occur. The Commission shall also retain one or more copies of the Final
EIR as a public record for a reasonable period of time. Finally, for private projects, the
Commission may require that the project applicant provide a copy of the certified Final EIR
to each Responsible Agency.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-78- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qualiry Act (1999) _ Environmental Impact Report
7.34 Private Project Costs. For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out
the project shall be charged a reasonable fee to recover the estimated costs incurred by the
Commission in preparing, circulating, and filing the Draft and Final EIRs, as well as all
publication costs incident thereto.
7.35 Filing Fees for Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources. At the time a Notice of
Determination for an EIR is filed with the Clerk, a fee of $850 shall be paid to the Clerk for
projects which will adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. These fees are collected by
the Clerk on behalf of the California Department of Fish and Game ("DFG").
Only one filing fee is required for each project unless the project is tiered or phased and
separate environmental documents are prepared. For projects where a Lead Agency and
Responsible Agencies file separate Notices of Determination, only the Lead Agency is
required to pay the fee.
Note: The Clerk customarily charges a documentary handling fee for each project in
addition to the filing fee specified above. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to help
determine the correct amount.
For private projects, the Commission shall pass these costs on to the project applicant.
No fees are required for projects with a "de minimis" effect on fish and wildlife
resources, or for certain projects undertaken by the DFG and implemented through a contract
with a non-profit entity or local government agency. A project with a "de minimis" effect has
no potential for adverse effect on fish and wildlife. This is an important exception. DFG
considers the following projects as likely to have "de minimis" effects on fish and wildlife,
depending on the specific facts of each project:
(1) Projects which enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats and result in no
accompanying adverse impacts to fish or wildlife;
(2) Lot line adjustments;
(3) Building remodeling;
(4) Annexations;
(5) Redevelopment on existing urban subdivisions with no wildlife habitat;
(6) Infill of undeveloped lots;
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -79- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0 0177
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental lm1'ac< Report
(7) Adoption of a General Plan, where CEQA requires a subsequent discretionary project
approval before any physical change to natural habitat is permitted.
If the Commission believes that a project will have a "de minimis" effect on wildlife
resources, it should file the Certificate of Fee Exemption attached as Form "L". This form
requires the Commission to set forth facts in support of the fee exemption. These facts
should include: (1) the name and address of the project proponent; (2) a brief description of
the project and its location; (3) a statement that an initial study has been prepared by the
Commission to evaluate the, project's effects on wildlife resources, if any; (4) a declaration
that there is no evidence before the Commission that the project will have any potential for
adverse effect on wildlife resources; and (5) a declaration that the Commission has, on the
basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in the
regulations. A presumption of adverse effect occurs if the project has the potential for
adverse effects on the fish and wildlife resources listed on Form "L". To rebut the
presumption of adverse effect, the Commission should explain in the declaration why the
project would not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife and reference any supporting
evidence. These findings should be made at the time of approval of the EIR and attached to
Form "L" when submitted to the County. Two copies of Form "L" must be filed with a
Notice of Determination in order to obtain the fee exemption.
If the Commission believes that a project has been undertaken by the DFG, that the
project's costs are payable from one or more of the sources indicated in the Fish and Game
Code, and that the project is being implemented through a contract with a non-profit entity
or a local government agency, the DFG filing does not apply. Since the DFG has not yet
adopted regulations to govern this exemption, including a new "Certificate of Fee
Exemption," the Commission may wish to use Form L and make appropriate modifications
to reflect this exemption.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-80- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Qualify Act (1999) _ Types of EIRS
8. TYPES OF FIRS
8.01 Project EIR. The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of
a specific development project and focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that
would result from the development project. This chapter describes a number of examples of
various EIRs tailored to different situations. All EIRs must meet the content requirements
summarized in Guidelines Section 7.12.
8.02 Subsequent EIR. A Subsequent EIR is required when a previous EIR has been
prepared and certified or a Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project and at least
one of the three following situations occur:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
a previous EIR due to the identification of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is to be undertaken which will require major revisions of a previous EIR due to the
identification of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete
or the Negative Declaration was adopted, becomes available and shows any of the
following: (1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in a
previous EIR or Negative Declaration, (2) significant effects previously examined will
be substantially more severe than shown in a previous EIR, (3) mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible are in fact feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the project proponent declines
to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives, or (4) mitigation measures or
alternatives which were not considered in a previous EIR would substantially lessen one
or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to
adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -81- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
0IJ01
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)._ Types of FIRS
A Subsequent EIR must receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR
received
In instances where the Commission is evaluating a modification or revision to an
existing use permit, the Commission may consider only those environmental impacts related
to the changes between what was allowed under the old permit and what is requested under
the new permit. Only if these differential impacts fall within the categories described above
may the Commission require additional environmental review.
When the Commission is considering approval of a development project which is
consistent with a general plan for which an EIR was completed, another EIR is required only
if the project causes environmental effects peculiar to the parcel which were not addressed
in the prior EIR, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than
described in the prior EIR.
8.03 Supplement to an EIR. The Commission as a Lead or Responsible Agency may choose
to prepare a Supplement to an EIR, rather than a Subsequent EIR, if any of the conditions
described in Guidelines Section 8.02 would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR and
only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately
apply to the project in the changed situation. To assist the Commission in making this
determination, the decision making body should request an Initial Study and/or a
recommendation by Staff. The Supplement to the EIR need contain only the information
necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.
A Supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is
given to a Draft EIR, but may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous EIR.
When the decision making body decides whether to approve the project, it shall consi-
der the previous EIR as revised by the supplement. Findings pursuant to Guidelines Section
7.28 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as supplemented.
8.04 Addendum to an EIR. The Commission as a Lead or Responsible Agency may choose
to prepare an Addendum to an EIR, rather than a Supplement to an EIR, only if none of the
conditions described in Guidelines Section 8.02 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR
have occurred and minor technical changes or additions are necessary. Since significant
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-82- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
(.) [j o' 0
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) T s of EIRS
effects on the environment were addressed by findings in the original EIR, no new findings
are required in the addendum.
An Addendum to an EIR need not be recirculated for public review but can be included
in or attached to the Final EIR. The decision making body shall consider the addendum with
the Final EIR prior to making a decision on a project. A brief explanation of the decision not
to prepare a Subsequent EIR should be included in the addendum, the EIR findings or
elsewhere in the record. This explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
8.05 Tiered FIR. "Tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a
previously certified broader EIR in later EIRs or Negative Declarations prepared for narrower
projects. The later EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference the general
discussions from the broader EIR and may concentrate solely on the issues specific to the
later project.
An Initial Study shall be prepared for the later project and used to determine whether
a Tiered EIR may be used and whether new significant effects should be examined. A Tiered
EIR shall be used for later projects where a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a
program, plan, policy, or ordinance and the Commission determines that:
(a) The later project is consistent with a program, plan, policy or ordinance for which an
EIR has been prepared and certified;
(b) The later project is consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning of the city
and county in which the later project would be located; and
(c) The later project would not require a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. (See
Guidelines Sections 8.02 and 8.03.)
Tiering does not excuse the Commission from adequately analyzing reasonable
foreseeable significant environmental effects of a project, and does not justify deferring such
analysis to a later tier EIR or Negative Declaration. However, the level of detail contained
in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance
being analyzed. In addition, where the Commission is using the tiering process in connection
with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof
(e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site -specific information
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -83- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act 119991 Types of EIRS
may not be feasible. Such site -specific information can be deferred, in many instances, until
such time as the Commission prepares a future environmental document in connection with
a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate
identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand.
Where a first tier EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or
ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, the Commission should limit the
EIR or Negative Declaration on the later project to effects which:
(a) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or
(b) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions
in the project by the imposition of conditions or other means.
Where the Commission determines that a cumulative effect had been adequately
addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of the later
EIR or Negative Declaration and need not be discussed in detail. When assessing whether
there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Commission shall consider whether the
incremental effects of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past
present, and probable future projects. This issue is ,not whether there is a significant
cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.
Significant environmental effects have been "adequately addressed" if the Commission
determines that:
(a) They have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior EIR and findings were
adopted in connection with that prior environmental report;
(b) They have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior EIR to enable those
effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions
or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project; or
(c) They cannot be mitigated to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts despite
the project proponent's willingness to accept all feasible mitigation measures, and the
only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another EIR would be to put the
agency in a position to adopt a statement of overriding considerations with respect to
the effects.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-84- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types of EIRS
8.06 Staged EIR. Where a large capital project will require .a number of discretionary
approvals from governmental agencies and one of the approvals will occur more than two
years before construction will begin, a Staged EIR may be prepared covering the entire
project in a general form or manner. A Staged EIR should evaluate a proposal in light of
current and contemplated plans and produce an informed estimate of the environmental
consequences of an entire project. The particular aspect ofthe project before the Commission
for approval shall be discussed with a greater degree of specificity.
Where a Staged EIR has been prepared, a Supplement to that EIR shall be prepared
when a later approval is required for the project, and the information available at the time of
the later approval would permit consideration of additional environmental impacts, mitigation
measures, or reasonable alternatives to the project.
8.07 Program Ea. A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on an integrated series
of actions that are related either:
(a) Geographically;
(b) As logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions;
(c) In connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
(d) As individual projects carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in
similar ways.
Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR
to determine whether additional environmental documents must be prepared. Additional
environmental review documents must be prepared if the proposed later project may arguably
cause significant adverse effects on the environment.
8.08 Use of a Program EIR With Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations. A program
EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later parts of
the program. The Program EIR can:
(a) Provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have
any significant effects.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-85- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
UJ
c3
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Qualiry Act (1999) Types of EIRS
(b) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects,
cumulative impacts, broad alternatives and other factors that apply to the program as
a whole.
(c) Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects which
had not been considered before.
8.09 Use of an EIR from an Earlier Project. A single EIR may be utilized to describe more
than one project when the projects involve substantially identical environmental impacts. Any
environmental impacts peculiar to one of the projects must be separately set forth and
explained.
8.10 Master EIR. A Master EIR is an EIR which may be prepared for:
(a) A general plan (including elements and amendments);
(b) A specific plan;
(c) A project consisting of smaller individual projects to be phased;
(d) A regulation to be implemented by subsequent projects;
(e) A project to be carried out pursuant to a development agreement;
(f) A project pursuant to or furthering a redevelopment plan;
(g) A state highway or mass transit project subject to multiple reviews or approvals; or
(h) A regional transportation plan or congestion management plan.
A Master EIR must do both of the following:
(a) Describe and present sufficient information about anticipated subsequent projects within
its scope, including their size, location, intensity, and scheduling; and
(b) Preliminarily describe potential impacts of anticipated subsequent projects for which
insufficient information is available to support a full impact assessment.
The Commission and Responsible Agencies identified in the Master EIR may use the
Master EIR to limit environmental review of subsequent projects. However, the subsequent
project Lead Agency must prepare an Initial Study to determine whether the subsequent
project and its significant environmental effects were included in the Master EIR. If the
subsequent project Lead Agency finds that the subsequent project will have no additional
significant environmental effect and that no new mitigation measures or alternatives may be
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-86- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
1
UU J1u4
Local Guidelines for Implerrterrting the
California Environmental Qualiry Act (1999) Types of EIRS
required, it may prepare written findings to that effect without preparing a new environmental
document or finding. If the subsequent project Lead Agency cannot make these findings, it
must prepare either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR for the subsequent project.
The Master ER cannot be used to limit review of a subsequent project if it was certified
more than five (5) years before the filing of an application for the subsequent project, or if the
approval of a project that was not described in the Master EIR may affect the adequacy of the
environmental review in the Master EIR for any subsequent project. However, the five (5)
year limitation does not apply if the Commission finds that no substantial changes or
information related to the Master EIR exist, or if it certifies a Subsequent or Supplemental
EIR that makes appropriate modification to the Master EIR.
The Commission as Lead Agency must provide Notice of Completion and availability
of a Master ER within a period of time prior to final adoption by the public agency, as
described in Guidelines Section 7.17.
The Commission may develop a fee program to fund the costs of a Master EIR.
8.11 Focused EIR. A Focused EIR is an EIR for a subsequent project identified in a Master
ER. It may be used only if the Commission finds that the Master EIR's analysis of
cumulative, growth -inducing, and irreversible significant environmental effects is adequate
for the subsequent project. The Focused EIR must incorporate by reference the Master ER.
The Focused EIR must analyze additional significant environmental effects not
addressed in the Master EIR and any new mitigation measures or alternatives not included
in the Master ER. ."Additional significant effects on the environment" means those project -
specific effects on the environment which were not addressed as significant effects on the
environment in the Master ER.
The Focused ER must also examine the following:
(a) Significant effects discussed in the Master ER for which substantial new information
exists that shows those effects may be more significant than described in the Master
EIR;
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -87- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
UUv1Cy5
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types of EIRS
(b) Those mitigation measures found to be infeasible in the Master EIR for which
substantial new information exists that shows those effects may be more significant than
described in the Master EIR; and
(c) Those mitigation measures found to be infeasible in the Master EIR for which
substantial new information exists that shows those measures may now be feasible.
The Focused EIR need not examine the following effects:
(d) Those that were mitigated through Master EIR mitigation measures; and
(e) Those that were examined in the Master EIR in sufficient detail to allow project -
specific mitigation or for which mitigation was found to be the responsibility of another
agency.
A Focused EIR may be prepared for a multifamily residential project not exceeding 100
units or a mixed use residential project not exceeding 100,000 square feet even though the
project was not identified in a Master EIR, if the following conditions are met:
(a) The project is consistent with a general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance for
which an EIR was prepared within five (5) years of the Focused EIR's certification;
(b) The project does not require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR
pursuant to Guidelines Sections 8.02 or 8.03; and
(c) The parcel is bordered by urban development, previously developed by urban uses, or
within one-half mile of a rail transit station.
A Focused EIR for these projects should be limited to site -specific significant effects and
significant effects that substantial new information shows will be more significant than
described in the Master EIR.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-88- 01999 Best Best & Krieger I.LP
utiClou
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions
9. DEFINITIONS
Whenever the following terms are used in these Guidelines, they shall have the following
meaning unless otherwise expressly defined:
9.01 "Applicant" means a person who proposes to carry out a project which requires a lease,
permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use, or requires financial aid from one or
more public agencies when applying for governmental approval or assistance.
9.02 "Approval" means a decision by the decision making body or other authorized body or
officer of the Commission which commits the Commission to a definite course of action with
regard to a particular project. With regard to any project to be undertaken directly by the
Commission, approval shall be deemed to occur on the date when the decision making body
adopts a motion or resolution determining to proceed with the project, which in no event shall
be later than the date of adoption of plans and specifications. As to private projects, approval
shall be deemed to have occurred upon the earliest commitment to provide service or the issu-
ance by the Commission of a discretionary contract, subsidy, or other form of financial assis-
tance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project. The mere
acquisition of land by the Commission shall not, in and of itself, be deemed to constitute
approval of a project.
For purposes of these Guidelines, all environmental documents must be completed as
of the time of project approval.
9.03 "CEOA" (the California Environmental Quality Act) means California Public Resources
Code Sections 21000, et seq.
9.04 "Categorical Exemption" means an exception from the requirement of preparing a
Negative Declaration or an EIR, based on a finding by the Secretary for Resources that the
class of projects does not have a significant effect on the environment.
9.05 "Clerk" means either the "Clerk of the Board" or the "County Clerk" depending upon
the county. Please refer to the "Index to Environmental Filing by County" in the Staff
Summary to determine which applies.
.9.06 "Commission" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -89- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Definitions
9.07 "Cumulative Impacts" means two or more individual effects which, when considered
together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The
individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate pro-
jects, whether past, present or future.
The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
9.08 "Cumulatively Considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of "probable future projects". (See
Guidelines Section 9.34.)
9.09 "Decision Making Body" means the body within the Commission ( i.e., Board of
Directors) with final approval authority over the particular project. (See Guidelines Section
9.02.)
9.10 "Development Project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development,
including any project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction but
not a permit to operate. It does not include any ministerial projects proposed to be carried
out or approved by public agencies. (Government Code Section 65928.)
9.11 "Discretionary Project" means a project for which approval requires the exercise of
independent judgment, deliberation, or decision -making on the part of the Commission.
9.12 "Draft EIR" means an EIR containing the information summarized in Guidelines Section
7.12.
9.13 "Emergency" means a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent
danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health,
property, or essential public services. Emergency includes such occurrences as fire, flood,
earthquake, landslide or other natural disaster, as well as such occurrences as riot, war,
accident or sabotage.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
u3C1;)3
-90- c1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Qualirv" Act (1999)
Definitions
9.14 "Environment" means the physical conditions which exist in the area which will be
affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient
noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
9.15 "EIR" (Environmental Impact Report) means a detailed written statement setting forth
the environmental effects and considerations pertaining to a project and may mean either a
Draft or a Final version of a typical EIR, a Project EIR, a Subsequent EIR, a Supplemental
EIR, a Tiered EIR, a Staged EIR, a Program EIR, a Master EIR, or a Focused EIR.
9.16 "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and
technological factors.
9.17 "Final E1R" means an EIR containing the information contained in the Draft EIR,
comments either verbatim or in summary received in the review process, a list of persons
commenting, and the response of the Commission to the comments received.
9.18 "Historical Resources" shall be determined according to the following:
(a) Resources listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical
Resources shall be considered historical resources.
(b) Resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public
Resources Code Sections 5020.1(k), or identified as significant in an historical resource
survey, as specified in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g), are presumed to be
historically or culturally significant, unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates
that they are not historically or culturally significant. •
(c) Any of the following may be considered historically significant: any object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a Lead Agency determines,
based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record, to be historically
significant or. significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California.
(d) Any resource shall be considered by the Lead Agency to be historically significant if the
resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register ofHistorical Resources.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -91- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Definitions
(See Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and 14 California Code of Regulations
Section 4852.)
(e) The Lead Agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is an historical
resource, as defined in,Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1, even if it
is: (a) not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of
Historical Resources; (b) not included in a local register of historical resources; or (c)
not identified in an historical resources survey.
9.19 "Initial Study" means a preliminary analysis conducted by the Commission to determine
whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration must be prepared or to identify the significant
environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR.
9.20 "Jurisdiction by Law" means the authority of any public agency to grant a permit or
other entitlement for use, to provide funding for the project in question or to exercise
authority over resources which may be affected by the project.
The Commission will have jurisdiction by law over a project when the Commission,
having primary and exclusive jurisdiction over the area involved, is the site of the project, the
area in which the major environmental effects will occur, or the area in which reside those
citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental effects.
9.21 "Land Disposal Facility" means a hazardous waste facility where hazardous waste is
disposed in, on, or under land. (Health & Safety Code Section 25199.1(d).)
9.22 "Large Treatment. Facility" means a treatment facility which treats or recycles one
thousand (1,000) or more tons of hazardous waste during any one month of the current
reporting period commencing on or after July 1, 1991. (Health & Safety Code Section
25205.1(d).)
9.23 "Lead Agency" means the public agency which has the principal responsibility for
preparing environmental documents and for carrying out or approving a project, which may
have significant effects on the environment, where more than one public agency is involved
with the same underlying activity.
9.24 "Mitigated Negative Declaration" means a Negative Declaration prepared for a Project
when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-92- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before
the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the
environment would occur, and (z) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the
environment.
9.25 "Mitigation" means avoiding the environmental impact altogether by not taking a certain
action or parts of an action, minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action and its implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring
the impacted environment, reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action, or compensating for the impact by
replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
9.26 "Negative Declaration" means a written statement by the Commission briefly describing
the reasons that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant effect
on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an EIR.
9.27 "Notice of Completion" means a brief report filed with the Office of Planning and
Research by the Commission when it is the Lead Agency as soon as it has completed a Draft
EIR and is prepared to send out copies for review.
9.28 "Notice of Determination" means a brief notice to be filed by the Commission when it
approves or determines to carry out a project which is subject to the requirements of CEQA.
9.29 "Notice of Exemption" means a brief notice which may be filed by the Commission
when it has approved or determined to carry out a project, and it has determined that the
project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Such a notice may also be filed by an
applicant where such a determination has been made by a public agency which must approve
the project.
9.30 "Notice of Preparation" means a brief notice sent by a Lead Agency to notify the
Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that the Lead Agency plans to prepare an EIR
for a project. The purpose of this notice is to solicit guidance from such agencies as to the
scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-93- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
Definitions
9.31 "Offsite Facility" means a facility that serves more than one generator of hazardous
waste. (Public Resources Code Section 21151.1(13)(g).)
9.32 "Person" includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business,
trust, corporation, company, city, county, city and county, city, town, the state, and any of
the agencies which may be political subdivisions of such entities.
9.33 "Private Project" means a project which will be carried out by a person other than a
governmental agency, but which will need a discretionary approval from the Commission.
Private projects will normally be those listed in subsections (b) and (c) of Guidelines Section
9.35.
9.34 "Probable Future Protects" means that, when evaluating cumulative impacts, those
projects requiring an agency approval for an application which has been received at the time
the Notice of Preparation is released; projects included in an adopted capital improvements
program, general plan, regional transportation plan, or other similar plan; projects included
in a summary of projections of projects in a general plan or a similar plan; projects anticipated
as later phase of a previously approved.project; or those public agency projects for which
money has been budgeted. (See Guidelines Section 7.12(j).)
9.35 "Project" means the whole of an action or activity which may cause either a direct
physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the
environment, and is any of the following:
(a) A discretionary activity directly undertaken by the Commission including but not limited
to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, or
improvements to existing public structures.
(b) A discretionary activity involving the issuance to a person .of a lease, permit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, or which is
supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other
forms of assistance by the Commission.
(c) A discretionary project proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies,
including but not limited to the enactment and amendment of local General Plans or
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -94- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
uu 1:,2
Local Guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999)
•
Defmitions
elements thereof, the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances,
the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps.
The presence of any real degree of control over the manner in which a project is
completed makes it a discretionary project.
The term project refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be
subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term project does
not mean each separate governmental approval.
9.36 "Responsible Agency" means a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve
a project for which a Lead Agency has prepared the environmental documents. For the
purposes of CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all federal, state, regional and
local public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power
over the project.
9.37 "Significant Effect" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any
of the physical conditions within the area affected by the activity including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects ofhistoric or aesthetic significance. A social
or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether
the physical change is significant.
9.38 "Staff' means the Executive Director or his or her designee.
9.39 "Standard" means a standard of general application that is all of the following:
(a) A quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in a statute, ordinance,
resolution, rule, regulation, order, or other standard of general application;
(b) Adopted for the purpose of environmental protection;
(c) Adopted by a public agency through a public review process;
(d) Governs the same environmental effect which the change in the environment is
impacting; and
(e) Governs the jurisdiction where the project is located.
The definition of "standard" includes thresholds of significance adopted by the
Commission which meet the requirements of this section.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _95_ °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
uU.31.`i3
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality`Act (1999) Definitions
If there is a conflict between standards, the Commission shall determine which standard
is appropriate based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
9.40 "State Guidelines" means the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Secretary of the California Resources Agency
as they now exist or hereafter may be amended. (California Administrative Code, Title 14,
Sections 15000, et seq.)
9.41 "Substantial Evidence" means reliable information on which a fair argument can be
based to support an inference or conclusion, even though another conclusion could be drawn
from that information. "Substantial evidence" includes facts, fact -related reasonable
assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported 'by facts. "Substantial
evidence" does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative,
evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts
which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.
9.42 "Tiering" means the coverage of general matters in broad scope or Program EIRs, with
subsequent narrower environmental documents (such as site -specific EIRs) incorporating by
reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the envi-
ronmental document subsequently prepared.
9.43 "Transportation Facilities" means major local arterials and public transit within five
miles of the project site, and freeways, highways, and rail transit service within ten miles of
the project site.
9.44 "Trustee Alzency" means a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.
Trustee Agencies include but are not limited to:
(a) The California Department of Fish and Game with regard to the fish and wildlife of the
state.
(b) The State Lands Commission with regard to state owned "sovereign" lands.
(c) The State Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units of the State Park
System.
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897 -96- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions
(d) The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water
Reserve System.
(e) The State Water Resources Control Board with respect to surface waters.
9.45 "Zoning Approval" means any enactment, amendment, or appeal of a zoning ordinance;
granting of a conditional use permit or variance; or any other form of land use, subdivision,
tract, or development approval required from the city or county having jurisdiction to permit
the particular use of the property.
RCTC/RVPUB/313897
-97- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Uvv-LziJ
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act {4999} Forms
10. FORMS
RCTC/RVPUB/3 13897
-98- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP
U6016u
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project:
2. Location:
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name:
(2) Address:
4. Staff Determination:
The Commission's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project
in accordance with the Commission's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further
environmental assessment because:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. .The project is a Ministerial Project. ,,
c. The project is an Emergency. Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class:
Date:
f.
g.
The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis:
h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead
Agency. Name of Lead Agency:
Staff
RCTC/ 199/R VPUB/312822
FORM "A"
tp3Ol- /
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM:
or
County Clerk
County of:
1. Project Title:
2. Project Location - Specific:
3. (a) Project Location - City:
(b) Project Location - County:
4. Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries of Project:
5. Name of Public Agency approving project:
6. Name of Person or Agency carrying out project:
7. Exempt status: (Check one)
(a) Ministerial project.
(b) Not a project.
(c) Emergency Project.
(d) Categorical Exemption. State type and class number:
(e) Declared Emergency.
(0 Statutory Exemption. State Code section number:
(g) Other. Explanation:
8. Reason why project was exempt:
9. Contact Person:
Telephone:
10. Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A") before filing.
Date Received for Filing:
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Signature (Lead Agency Representative)
Title
RCTC/1999/RVPLB/313749
uu.1 3
FORM "B"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY)
1. Name or description of project:
2. Location:
3. Entity or Person undertaking project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name:
(2) Address:
4. Staff Determination:
The Commission's staff, having undertaken and completed an Initial Study of this project in
accordance with the Commission's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA)" for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proposed project may
have a significant effect on the environment, has reached the following conclusion:
(a) The project could not have a significant effect on the
environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration should be
adopted.
(b) The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the
environment but revisions in the project plans or proposals made
by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects, or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur; therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration
should be adopted.
(c) The project may have a significant effect on the environment;
therefore, an Environmental Impact Report will be required.
Date:
Staff
RCTC/1999/RVPUB/313831
FORDS. "CI •
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A DRAFT NEGATIVE DEC Lk TION/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Notice is hereby given that
has completed an Initial Study of the
project in accordance with the Commission's Guidelines imple-
menting the California Environmental Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the
purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the
basis of such Initial Study, the Commission's Staff has concluded that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment
of the Commission. The Project site is is not on a list compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file at the Commission's offices,
and are available for public
review. Comments will be received until . Any person wishing
to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the Commission prior to
this date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested.
At its meeting on at , the
Board of Directors will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated
Negative Declaration. If the Board of Directors fmds that the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
This means that the Board of Directors may proceed to consider the project without the prepar-
ation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Date Received
for Filing:
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Staff
Title
RCTC/1999/RVPUB/312819
u60;_u
FORM "D"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name, if any, and a brief description of project:
2. Location:
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name:
(2) Address:
The Board of Directors, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and
having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the Board of
Directors, including the recommendation of the Commission's Staff, does hereby fmd and declare
that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement
of the reasons supporting the Board of Directors' findings are as follows:
The Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment.
A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at:
Phone No.:
The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which the Commission based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration
are as follows:
Phone No.:
Staff
Date Received for Filing
RCTC/ 1999/R V PuB/313745
FORM "E"
UU 2tj1
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM:
or
County Clerk
County of:
Office of Planning and Research (If the project requires state approval)
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT:
Protect
Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21152 of the Public
Resources Code.
tate t;iearnnghouse Number
(If submitted to Clearinghouse)
roaect ocattoi Include County)
roject escrtpuon
onlact Person
epttone Number
This is to certify that the
a gency or R espoust a gency
approved the above described project on and made the following determinations:
1. The project will will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2- An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified for this project pursuant
to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.
A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was. prepared for this .project pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.
3. Mitigation measures were _ were not made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was was not adopted for this project.
5. Findings were were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
6. The location and custodian of the documents which comprise the record of proceedings for
the Final EIR (with comments and responses) or Negative Declaration are specified as
follows: Custodian:
Location:
Date
Signature
Date Received for Filing Title
RCTC/I999/RVPUB/313828
FORM "F"
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
TO: FROM:
(Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency)
(Address)
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of, a Draft Environmental Impact Report.
The will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an
environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your
agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your
agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need
to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the
project.
The Project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in
the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is _ is not attached.
Your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after
receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to
shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency.
PROJECT TITLE:
at the address
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (brief):
PROJECT APPLICANT, IF ANY:
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAZARDOUS
WASTE LIST (if applicable):
Date:
Signature
Title
Telephone
Consulting firm retained to prepare draft EIR (if applicable):
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Contact Person:
RCTC/1999/R VPUB/312817
FORM "G
Jv.:.t/j
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Mail to: State Clearinghouse. 1400 Tenth Street. Sacramento. CA 95814 (9161445-0613
PROJECT TITLE
LEAD AGENCY
CONTACT PERSON
STREET ADDRESS
MAILING ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
CITY
PROJECT LOCATION
ZIP CODE
CITY
ZIP CODE
COUNTY
COUNTY
CROSS STREETS
CITY/NEAREST COMMUNITY
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
TOTAL ACRES
WITHIN 2 MILES: STATE HIGHWAY NO.
SECTION
TOWNSHIP
RANGE
BASE
AIRPORTS
DOCUMENT TYPE CEQA: NOP
Early Cons
_ Neg Dec
Draft EIR
RAILWAYS
LOCAL ACTION TYPE
_ General Plan Update
_ General Plan Amendment
General Plan Element
Community Plan
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Residential:
Office:
Commercial:
Industrial:
Educational
Institutional
Recreational
Specific Plan
Master Plan
Planned Unit Development
Site Plan
WATERWAYS
SCHOOLS
_ SupplementSubsequant
EIR (Prior SCH No.)
Other
_ Master EIR
Focused EIR
Rezone
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division•
_ Annexation
_ Redevelopment
Coastal Permit
Other
9Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map. etc.)
Units Acres _ Water Facilities: Type MGD
Sq•ft- Acres Employees Transportation: Type
Soft_ Acres Employees Mining: Mineral
Sq.►t, Acres
Employees Power:
Type Watts
Waste Treatment: Type
Hazardous Waste: Type
Other:
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
Aesthetic/Visual
Agricultural Land
Air Quality
Archeological/Historical
Coastal Zone
Drainage/Absorption
Economic/Jobs
_ Fiscal
Flood Plain/Flooding
Forest Land/Fire Hazard
Geologic/Seismic
Health Hazards
Minerals
Noise
_ Population/Housing Balance
Public Services/Facilities
Recreation/parks
Schools/Universities
Septic Systems
Sewer Capacity
Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
Solid Waste
PRESENT LAND USE/ZONING/GENERAL PLAN USE
Toxic/Hazardous
Traffic/Circulation
_ Vegetation
Water Quality
_ Water. Supply/Groundwater
_ Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
_ Growth Inducing
Land Use
_ Cumulative Effects
Other
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DATE PROJECT NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC
RCTC/ 1999/RVPJB/313742
lJvvr..� i
FORM "H"
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(To be completed by private project applicant to assist staff in completing initial study)
Date Filed:
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:
2. Address of project:
Assessor's Block and Lot Number:
3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this
project:
4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains:
5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this
project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
6. Existing zoning district:
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed):
ROJECT DESCRIPTION
8. Site size.
9. Square footage.
10. Number of floors of construction.
11. Amount of off-street parking provided.
12. Attach plans.
13. Proposed scheduling.
14. Associated projects.
15. Anticipated incremental development.
16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sales prices or
RCTC / 1999/R VPUB/313825
Page 1 of 3
FORM "I"
Ut/v,:UJ
rents and type of household size expected.
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area and loading facilities.
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift and loading facilities.
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities and community benefits to be derived from the project.
20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and
indicate clearly why the application is required.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked
yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
Yes No
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches,
lakes, hills or substantial alteration of ground contours.
22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential
areas or public lands or roads.
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of
project.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality
or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns.
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in
the vicinity.
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.).
RCTC/1999/12VPUB/313825
Page 2 of 3 FORM "I"
Yes No
31. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity,
oil, natural gas, etc.).
32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for
a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this
project?
34. If you answered yes to question 33, may this project cause
significant effects on the environment that were not
examined in the prior EIR?
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
35. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on
topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects.
Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photo-
graphs of the site. (Snapshots or instant photos acceptable.)
36. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any
cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential,
commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department
stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.), Attach
photographs of the vicinity. (Snapshots or instant photos acceptable . )
CER 1'IFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
exhibits present the- data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my
ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
DATE:
(Signature)
For
RCTC/1999/RVPUB/313825
Page 3 of 3
FORM "I"
GU u 7
ENVi.RONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation: 7 zap.
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole actioninvolved, including but not limited to later phases of
the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement):
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
FORM "J"
Page 1 of 14
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
O Aesthetics
O Biological Resources
0 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
O Mineral Resources
O Public Services
O Utilities / Service Systems
❑ Agriculture Resources
O Cultural Resources
❑ Hydrology / Water Quality
O Noise
❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation.
❑ Air Quality
O Geology / Soils
O Land Use / Planning
❑ Population / Housing
O Transportation / Traffic
O 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
O I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
O I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
O I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATNE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Printed Name
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
Page 2 of 14
Date
For
FORM "3"
0,
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A bnef explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cotes in the parentheses following each question A "No Impact" answer
is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show thar the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as
well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must rndhcate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a
bnef discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a 'reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion..
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects
in whatever format is selected.
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
FORM "T'
Page 3 of 14
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified,. if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
SAMPLE QUESTION
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
D ❑ D D
❑ D ❑ 0
Page 4 of 14
FORM"J"
0 63 . l'
Less Than
Issues. Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, 0 0 0 0
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? .
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
o 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
FORM "J"
V�v�.i2 Page 5 of 14
Issues
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? •
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
❑ 0 0 0
❑ O O O
❑ O 0 0
❑ ❑ 0 0
O ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
FORM "T'
Page 6 of 14
Issues
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp,
Impact Incorporated Impact
o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
o 0 0 ❑
o ❑ ❑ 0
o 0 0 ❑
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
FORM "J"
Page 7of14
Issues
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ 0 ❑ 0
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 0 0
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/3 12815
0
o 0 0 ❑
❑ o 0 0
❑ o 0
FORM "J"
Page 8of14
Issues
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Irn-ct
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0 0 0 0
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ❑ 0 ❑
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑
0
0
0
0
❑ ❑ ❑
RCTC/R VPUB/ 1999/312815
FORM "3"
Page 9 of 14
Issues.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
FORM "T'
Page 10 of 14
�vto
J;
Issues.
c) A substantial permanent increase in'ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imr-
Impact Incorporated Impact
0 0 0 0
o o ❑ o
0 0 0 ❑
o o o o
0 ❑ 0 0
❑ ❑ ❑
FORM "J"
Page 11 of 14
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection? ❑
Schools? ❑
Parks? 0
Other public facilities? 0
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which have an adverse'physical effect on the
environment?
XV- TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e_, result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
❑ ❑ ❑
FORM "3"
Page 12 of 14
Issues
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp,
Impact Incorporated Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
O 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
o ❑ 0 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑
FORM"J"
lip._) 0-
Page 13 of 14
Issues
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ 0 0
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 0 0 0 0
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing .
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815
❑ 0
0 ❑ ❑ ❑
FORM "J"
Page 14 of 14
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TO:
Project Title
Project Location - Specific
Project Location - City Project Location - County
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:
The Significant Effects on the Environment, if any, Anticipated as a Result of the Project:
Lead Agency
Division
Date when project noticed to public:
Address where copy of the EIR and all documents referenced in the EIR are available:
Review Period
Date, Time and Location of Public Hearing, if any:
Contact Person
Area Code - Telephone - Extension
[To be published, posted or mailed to contiguous owners/occupants, and sent to the last
known name and address of organizations and individuals who have previously requested it.]
RCTC/1999/RVPUB/313739
FORM "K"
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (include county):
Name and Address of Project Applicant:
Project Description:
Findings of Exemption:
1. An Initial Study has been prepared by the Lead Agency to evaluate the project's effects on wildlife
resources, if any.
2. The Lead Agency hereby finds that there is no evidence before the Commission that the project will
have any potential for adverse effect on the environment
3. The project *will will not result in any changes to the following resources:
(A) Riparian land, rivers, streams, watercourses and wetlands;
(B) Native and non-native plant life and the soil required to sustain habitat for fish and wildlife;
(C) Rare and unique plant life and ecological communities dependant on plant life;
(D) Listed threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitat in which they are believed to
reside;
(E) All species listed as protected or identified for special management in the Fish and Game Code,
the Public Resources Code, the Water Code or regulations adopted thereunder;
(F) All marine and terrestrial species subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game
and the ecological communities in which they reside: and
(G) All air and water resources, the degradation of which will individually or cumulatively result in a
loss of biological diversity among the plants and animals residing in that air and water.
* If the project will result in changes to any of these resources, the Commission has, on the basis of
substantial evidence, 'rebutted' the presumption of adverse effect to these resources. A statement in
support of this rebuttal is attached.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that the Lead Agency has made the above findings) of fact and based
upon the Initial Study and the hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively
have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game
Code.
Lead Agency Representative
Title:
Lead Agency:
Date:
RCTC/1999/RVPUB/312812
FORM "L"
AGENDA ITEM 12
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services
Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Amend RCTC Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Set
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Overall Annual Goal for
Federally Funded Projects
The Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program was first
adopted in 1992, and was amended in September 14, 1994. Since then, there were
changes in the Federal Rules and Regulations at CFR Parts 23 and 26 warranting
amendment of the Commission's Program.
The program applies only to federally -funded projects. The purpose of the program
is to ensure equal opportunity in transportation contracting markets, address the
effects of discrimination in transportation contracting, and promote increased
participation in federally funded contracts by small, socially and economically
disadvantaged businesses, including minority and women owned enterprises. The
statute establishes a national aspirational goal of at least 10% of the amounts made
available for any federal -aid highways, mass transit, and transportation research and
technology program to be expended with certified DBEs. DBEs must be certified by
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or any federal funding
recipients in order to be included in the count of DBEs.
The Commission must set its DBE goal and submit it to Caltrans by September 1. The
goal is submitted to Caltrans as federal funds for the Commission flows through
Caltrans.
An agency must set its annual overall DBE goal in accordance to procedures under
federal regulations 49 CFR Section 26. The agency, to the maximum extent feasible,
must make every effort to meet its goal through race -neutral measures. Only in those
instances where race neutral measures are inadequate to meet the agency's overall
goal may the agency establish specific contract goals, including goals, for particular
projects through subcontracting opportunities. The process by which the DBE goal
is established is as follows: 1) Determine the amount of federal funds that the agency
will receive in the fiscal year; 2) Establish the base figure of DBEs as a percentage of
all contractors, subcontractors, manufacturers and suppliers in relevant market areas;
6uD�.,L5
3) Adjust the base figure based on availability of DBEs.
For FY 1999-2000, the Commission is projected to receive and award a total of
$7,496,000 ($5,741,000 construction and $1,755,000 professional services) in
federal funds. Federal funds will be used for the following projects:
1) Santa Fe Depot restoration;
2) Pedley Metrolink Station surveillance and platform;
3) La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Station overcrossings;
4) San Jacinto Branch Line engineering; and,
5) Miscellaneous Professional Services, i.e., Valley Research Planning
Associates and Geographics - CMP
Based on the amount federal funds projected to be received and awarded, and the
based figure for DBEs, the proposed overall annual goal for RCTC for FY 1999-2000
is 11.6%. Public agencies such as Caltrans, City and County of Riverside, and a
number of surrounding public agencies has set their annual DBE goal at 10% for
federal funded projects.
To comply with regulations, staff has published the proposed annual goal in the
newspapers and that public comments on the Commission's goal and methodology
used to set the goal will be accepted for a period of 45 days, from the date of
publication. If there are any comments received, staff will present them to the
Commission in September.
Linda B. Wright and Pamela V. Dowell of Karo Enterprises - Commission Consultants,
will be present at the Committee meeting to make a brief presentation on the steps
taken to arrive at the 11.6% goal and Steve DeBaun of Best, Best and Krieger, Legal
Counsel, will answer any questions that the Committee may have on the proposed
Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee recommend that the Commission: 1) Adopt the amended RCTC
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program; 2) Set RCTC's overall DBE goal at
11.6%; and, 3) Authorize staff to submit its adopted plan and goal to the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
NK
Attachments: 1 - Amended RCTC Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
2 - Overall Annual Goal Report
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION G
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS E
;Sf
MMISSION
RAM
RVPUBIJFW1517541
6/22/99
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
1. POLICY
A. Policy Statement
The Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC" ) Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Program ("Program") is based on the provisions of C 4716.1A and the
Federal Rules and Regulations at 49 CFR part 23 and 26, as amended pi* p gram represents a
continuing effort on the part ofRCTC to integrate Disadvantaged Business Ente ses-"DBEs" ito
the procurement mainstream. This program is intended`. contribute mneasu .t`v €a and .I ME
goals stated below and as set forth in applicable federal: ulatio
A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy Statem ttachment F) was originally sub-
mitted to and approved by the RCTC Board of Directs t trvmber 12, 1992. This Policy
Statement has also been revised to comply with the newfcderal'Oil3 : i trements implemented on
March 4, 1999, which are located at 49 CFR Part 26; This Policy St ettlent expresses a commitment
on the part of RCTC to put forth its best efforts "ttx invr# i Flisadvant;ar +ed Business Enterprises in
all phases of its procurement activities" with rrg; i d to e p ditures onDepartment of Transportation
("DOT") assisted contracts. In striving to xticlude DBEs iiri l phases ofDOT-assisted projects under
this Program, RCTC is committed to employing race neutral s as that term is defined in 49 CFR
Part 26, to the maximum extent possible Only after it makes a determination, on an annual basis, that
its overall goal for DBE participation° in its pOT-assisted project cannot be reached through race
neutral means shall RCTC emplp-contract,;
Copies of the Policy Statement are posted `or are available in conspicuous locations where
they may. by disadva taged businesses and/or RCTC employees. The Policy Statement is
widely dissetnin rouuhout_t-he community via press releases to the electronic and print media
and by mail to t lc al.disadvantaed business development organizations and local disadvantaged
vendors In addition to 'sting and community distribution, each member of middle and upper level
managerWit, including eltab RCTC board member, will be provided with a copy of the Policy
Statement. (See Section 1 For:Distribution List.)
B. Program Objectives
Pursuant ta: the requirements of the federal rules and regulations (49 CFR Parts 23 and 26,
;owit-g. to expenditures of DOT funds, the following provisions of RCTC's Program
expenditure of funds received pursuant to the Surface Transportation and Uniform
Relt art`'Assistance Act of 1987 ("Act"), the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended,
the Federal Transportation Act, and the Federal Aviation Act.
RCTC encourages ready, willing and able DBEs to become involved in all phases of its DOT
assisted contracts, including but not limited to, RCTC procurement activities, fixed -price contracting,
regular purchases of goods and services, and special government grant procurements, to the
RVPUBWFW1517541 -1- 6/22/99
VU'Jc.-0
maximum extent feasible. Pursuant to this Program, RCTC may establish appropriate contract goals
for expenditures on federally funded programs entered into with small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; provided, however, that it has first
made a determination, on an annual basis, that its overall goals for DBE participation in DOT -assisted
projects cannot be met through the use of race neutral means.
To further Program goals, RCTC shall
(1) Identify DBE certified firms which are qualified prov ''required
goods, materials, supplies and services (See Attc ts A, B, and
C);
(2) Develop and implement infoi i i -ion andcommunication pr gr�= and
procedures designed to acquaint prospective DBEs, at s, with
RCTC's contracting and procurement procedures and requirements.
(3)
Develop the necessary interdepa e
that will promote, foster and f cilitate it
Program; and
(4) Contribute to the ecq
2. DEFINITIONS
eic ships within RCTC
entation of this
For the purposes of this Pram, a L!BE is defined as a small business that is owned and
controlled by one or more socially conotrrtt'nlly disadvantaged individuals.
RV PUB\JFW\517541
econoraealli disadvantaged individuals means those individuals
ens of the United States (or lawfully admitted permanent
who are women, Black or African Americans, Hispanic
ye Americans, Asian -Pacific Americans, or Asian -Indian
cans and any other minorities or individuals found to be disadvantaged
ection 106(c) of the Act, and by the Small Business Administration
ur, ntti Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. However, any otherwise
e i teindividual whose personal net worth is in excess of Seven Hundred
a '1 Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) may not qualify for a social and
onomic disadvantage status;
Disadvantaged business means a small business concern:
(a) That is at least 51 percent owned by one or more socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals, or, in the case of any publicly
owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by
one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, or,
in the case of a partnership or limited liability company, at least 51
percent of the interest is owned by one or more socially and
-2-
6/22/99
economically disadvantaged individuals, as demonstrated by the
substance, not merely the form, of these various ownership
arrangements; and
(b) Whose management and daily business operations are controlled by
one or more of the socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals who own it.
3. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DBE PROGRAM TMPLEMENTA"ll'IO111
A. Liaison Officer
The RCTC Executive Director shall appoint a
manage and implement the Program on a day-to-day bad
and disseminate information on available business oppd s
equitable opportunity to bid on RCTC-administered contra;
authority for the implementation and administration oft(
assist DBEs, maintain a close working relationship' with loea
information and recommendations in the development tof.bid pack
BE Liaisn O
rovrd 7BEs with fet
i s so that DBEs will h provided an
Liaison Officer shall have full
eluding efforts to contact and
Hates, and to develop
rocurement plans.
The Liaison Officer's duties and resptinsibilitte i lude.the following:
flop,
lstance,
He or she shall b responsible for implementing all aspects of the Program in
accordance with applicableFederal tate and local laws and regulations.
He or she'shall have meet and independent access to the RCTC Executive
Director ho shall a grt<adequate staff to assist the Liaison Officer in the
ce of his/her duties_
we responsibility for monitoring Program compliance, which
es are set forth in greater detail in Section 5(G) below.
I l Liaison ll report directly to the RCTC Executive Director, who shall assign
adequ staff to assist 1 e I.t son Officer in the performance of his/her duties. The reporting
structure and duties of support'staff are as follows:
(1) ;Title: Executive Director (Reconsideration Official)
Name: Eric Haley
Responsibility: Ensures that DBE Policy is implemented as adopted
by RCTC.
RVPUB\JFW\517541
liJu ,U
-3-
6/22/99
(2) Title. Deputy Executive Director/DBE Liaison Officer
Name: Paul Blackwelder
Responsibility: Responsible for the day-to-day operation of the DBE
Policy.
(3) Title: Director of Administrative Services
Name: Naty Kopenhavr
Responsibility: Assists the ' 3BE Li n in ensuing
compliance throug t i e rem ofs. r tirts,
`iin conductin iervi making field . ns and
keeping reod a daily diary of contra *-activities.
B. Reconsideration Official
The RCTC Executive Director shall be the. et nsideration l cial The Reconsideration
Official shall be responsible for responding to cl al rc mplaints an rig out of or related to this
DBE Program, including those related to ce tionch ler the resew ofgood faith compliance
efforts by bidding firms, and determinate of the mount, C actually performed by DBEs,
except those decertification proceedings equiring 'hearing i, as set forth below in Section 8.
Financial Itr ti kions
nvesti at ill extent of services offered by financial institutions owned and
controlled and mono sad vantaged individuals in the Riverside area and shall make
reasonable efor pse,these in tiotts`in connection with the DOT -assisted projects. In order
to determine €'b $ ancial i4iiiiitions, RCTC may use the investigations and determinations
of other, l vant pub . :receiving DOT assistance. Additionally, RCTC shall encourage its
prime, contractors on D T a d projects to use such financial institutions.
The DBE I., son Officer shall maintain a DBE Directory that will serve as a resource in
ate Atf&is DBE goals. To maintain this DBE Directory, RCTC may use, in part or in
portions of the DBE Directory developed and maintained by Cal -DOT. The
ire i iv` Zall include:
(1) Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of certified DBE firms;
(2) Types of work the firm is certified to perform as a DBE; and
-4-
RVPUB\JFW\517541
6/22/99
Uv J i
v4 - J1
(3)
(4)
Contact person for the firm;
The DBE directory shall also specify which firms the Federal Transportation
Administration ("FTA"), other recipients ofDOT funding, RCTC or the Small
Business Administration has determined are certified DBEs in accordance
with procedures established under applicable Federal laws and regulations;
and
(5) The RCTC shall update its DBE directory annually;and maintain a current
listing of the addresses of listed firms.
The DBE Directory shall only indicate the DBE stems of limi.tedar j
pre -qualify the listed firms with respect to licensingbondabilty corn
responsibility.
RCTC shall do the following regarding the DBE
(1) RCTC staff will refer to the DBE Director
specifications for any procurements.
(2) The DBE Directory s'
C. Over Concentration of BEs
o sending out contract
?able to> ny interested parties.
If RCTC determines there `an overtoncentration of DBE firms in a particular type of
activity or work under its jurisdiction or conrrGl unduly burdening non -DBE firms from access to the
activity or type of work, It halrf take appr r e. -steps, including, but not limited to, providing
incentives apical assistarf> f mentor program; -and other actions in order to assist DBE firms
transition tp otb CTC`a work areas.
the D proval prior to implementing any remedial action devised to
n of DB rms in a particular activity or work. When approved by the
taken regarding DBE over concentration shall become a part of this
D. BusinessDevelopment and Mentor -Protegee Programs
Where nec ary to solicit ready, willing and able DBEs or to ensure that an over
on of t BEs does not exist in any type or activity of work, RCTC may, at its discretion,
rtsmness development and/or mentor -protegee programs for DBEs. Additionally, where
direly<# do so by the DOT or other appropriate operating administration, RCTC shall implement
such programs. These programs shall assist DBEs develop business skills and experience in areas
related to the services required by the RCTC. Any such programs implemented by RCTC shall
comply with the federal guidelines set forth in Appendices C and D to 49 CFR Part 26.
RVPUB\JFW\517541
-5-
6/22/99
5. DETERMINING, MEETING, AND COUNTING OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOALS
A. Method
RCTC shall annually set overall DBE Program goals for DOT -assisted projects in accordance
with the provisions of 49 C.F.R. Section 26.41 et semc . The method by v pch KCTC established its
DBE Program goals for fiscal year 2000 are more fully set for :in the R ched as Attachment
H.
B. DBE Eligibility ,
The DBE Liaison Officer shall, where required, e
for participation in contract work are certified as eligible
following as evidence of DBE eligibility:
4.DBE firms listed 1> tlie contractor
RCTC may accept any of the
(1) Certifications made by other recipients of funding,
especially determinations; zcipating e or local
agency whose certif tion c mplies ith 49 CFR
Parts 23 and 26:
(2) Certification adc by a participatin, 'state of local agency as
valid status o ltat enterprise, with.tespect to the identities of
the persons certified• having ownership and control of the
busiolkpos piterprise
in the Cal-DOTs computerized data bank;
'UCP Directory, when implemented; and
's determined by RCTC to meet the certification criteria of 49 CFR
laid 26.
Where the eligibi ty of a firm has not been determined, the DBE Liaison Officer shall require
ntractor and/orDBE subcontractor(s) to obtain DBE certification within thirty (30) days,
s;good cause for an extension has been shown to RCTC.
ball require all prime contractors to make good faith efforts to replace any DBE
or that is unable to perform successfully with another DBE subcontractor. In order to
ensure that a particular substitute firm is an eligible DBE, all such substitutions of subcontractors
must be approved by RCTC before bid opening and/or as soon as possible during contract
performance.
RVPUB\JFW\517541
-6-
6/22/99
a.1
C. Race Neutral Means
This Program does not establish DBE quotas or set -asides for RCTC contracts. Rather, this
Program reflects a good faith effort on RCTC's part to support DBE firms that are ready, willing,
and enable to carry out work on its behalf. Under no circumstances shall RCTC exclude any person
or firm from participation, deny any person or firm the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against
any person or firm on the basis of race, color, sex or national origin.
To that end, RCTC is committed to race neutral meari,f, of ensu'n
eligible for future contracting with RCTC. Specifically, RCT1acommitt
outreach and public efforts, prompt payment and other tract provi;.
race neutral means, including those more fully set forth in. Section 10(O} belo
its DOT -assisted contracting and services agreements in . non-dst riminatory ni
Only after it makes a determination, on an ann
participation in its DOT -assisted project cannot be reacher
establish DBE contract goals for the year.
D. Contract Goals
t DBEs may become
rip'Hoying community
ether appropriate
re apOess to
hat its overall goal for DBE
neutral means shall RCTC
RCTC shall set annual overall DBE "Program go September 1, 1999 for calendar
year 1999 and prior to August 1st for s sequent ears. T' e_..overall. DBE goals. shall be based on
demonstrable evidence of the availability of DBEs relative to all businesses ready, willing and able
to participate in RCTC's DOT-asst l contracts and shall'reflect RCTC's determination of the level
of DBE participation absent the effects o discrimination in its jurisdiction. RCTC shall also
determine t1 extent to which tl race neutral mks may achieve its overall DBE Program goals.
RCTC shy Use race neutral to meet` is overall DBE Program goals to the maximum extent
feasible'
mit its oe l ?:13 Program goals and the analysis used to calculate them to
„mrire RCTC:w a subrecipient, to the primary recipient of DOT funding, as
its its overall DBE goals, RCTC shall publish a public notice,
{gibing how they were selected which shall be available for inspection
du r normal business hours at RCTC's principal office for a 30 day period. The announcement shall
orm the public that FTA and/or the primary recipient and RCTC will accept comments on the
s for a period of 4day period. The notice shall include addresses to which comments may be
and shall be p l shed in general circulation media and available for minority -focus media and
ssociatl n pii<blications, and shall state that the comments are for informational purposes only.
ere RCTC has made a determination, on an annual basis, that race neutral means are
insufficient to met its overall DBE Program goals, it shall implement DBE contract goals for that
year. Where necessary, the following rules and criteria shall be used by RCTC when implementing
DBE participation contract goals for its DOT -assisted projects:
RVPUB\JFW\517541
-7-
6/22/99
(1)
Contract goals need not be stated in the Program, but the Program
shall contain a description of the methodology to be used in
establishing them. Contract goals may, however, require approval by
FTA and/or the primary recipient prior to contract solicitation.
Contract goals will provide for participation by all DBEs and will not
be subdivided into group specific goals.
(2) The contract goals for the year shall be set, where necessary;Ao that they will
cumulatively result in that portion ofRCTC's ove DB, .Program goal not
meet through the use of race -neutral.; means. < =forth in the Report
attached as Attachment (H), DBI articipatum for DOT -funded
projects for fiscal year 2000 shall b==C1.6%
(3) RCTC may set goals for specific contracts fiat may be hi er{ er than
its overall DBE goals, depending',,on the type of work involved, the location
of the work and the available ofDB
Additionally, if, during the course=
will fall short of its overall I)BE goa
appropriate modifications to ntract go
(4) If, during the cours 3
�'
implementation of is contrar,
year, it shall red e or elim ate its Ott
(5)
{
If RCTC k tained: DBE participation that exceeds its overall DBE goals
for two consecutive fsi al years:kit shall reduce its contract goals for the next
ar:accordin ly c itionaIly. ifRCTC has met its overall DBE goals
neutral mks for two consecutive years, it will continue to use
eans andf not set contract goals until such time that it has not
BE goals for a fiscal year.
work on the particular contract.
RCTC determines that it
ear, RCTC may make
etermines that through the
its overall DBE goals for that
goals to the extent necessary.
h Efforts in Contract Provisions.
For all projects for which contract goals have been established, RCTC
shall, in the solicitation process, inform competitors that the apparent
successful competitor will be required to submit DBE participation
information to RCTC and that the award of the contract will be
conditioned upon satisfaction of RCTC DBE requirements.
(b) The apparent successful competitor's submission shall include the
following information:
(i) The names and addresses ofDBE firms that will participate in
the contract;
RVPUB\JFW\517541
-8-
6/22/99
(ii) A description of the work each named DBE firm will perform;
(iii) The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE firm;
(iv) Written documentation of the bidder's commitment to use the
DBE subcontractor(s) it has submitted with its bid; and
(v) Written confirmation from the DBE that its articipating in
the contract in accordance with the der' =commitment to it.
(c) RCTC may select the time ` sub sz# ;Fob DBE information,
provided that the times of submission B l be. before R
commits itself to the performance e co €h ap rent
successful competitor.
(d) If the DBE participation su -t pes not meet the DBE Program
goals, the apparent succe '641, aor shall satisfy Fes, RCTC that the
competitor has made good faith elm et the goals, as set forth
below.
(e) Meeting DBE 'a]s o
DBE parti ation gp s
contract
od f; efforts or meeting RCTC's
MI of receiving a FTA assisted
(2) Bidders FA tit to Achieve the DBE Goals
(a) f ° k ders wh, to ieve specified DBE contract goals (where
aired) shall b it, within 3 days after the request of the DBE
iais ,n Officer, documentation demonstrating that good faith efforts
d in an attempt to meet such goals, and explaining why the
Oft TIM be achieved and why meeting the goal was beyond the
cont r` r's control. Should RCTC make a determination that the
udder failed to make good faith efforts to reach required DBE goals,
ebidder may request an Administrative reconsideration.
Good faith efforts may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the
following activities:
(i)
Attendance at any pre -bid meeting as may be scheduled by
RCTC to inform prospective contractors and DBEs of
subcontracting opportunities for the subject project.
(ii) Identify portions of the work to be performed by
subcontractors in which DBEs may participate.
RVPUB\JFW1517541
n
u
-9-
6/22/99
(iii) Advertise in general circulation media, trade associations
publications, and/or disadvantaged focus media identifying
specific subcontracting opportunities.
RVPUB\JFW\517541
(iv) Solicit through all reasonable and available means within a
reasonable time frame the interest of all DBEs which have the
capacity to perform the work on the contract.
(v) Provide interested DBE subco d actor with adequate
information about the .plans, s ins and requirements
of the contract.
(vi)
Negotiate in goo s with with serest rt ject
them as unquaii with : sound reams. on a
thorough investig t3 ieir capabilities.
vii Assist interested D. in tiiirOs bonding, lines of credit, or
insurance required by RC"i` ontractor.
Use o, s+
organ tons, zs
anaderal DBE
a 'stance in the rec�tt'and placement of DBEs.
of Viable DBE community
ed contractor groups, local, state
3tlier organizations that provide
(ix !;;, Make :arts to assist interested DBEs obtain necessary
equipr t, supplies, materials, or services.
y ens of making good faith efforts set forth in
Appendix A to 49 CFR part 26.
er/contractor does not make the explanation required
above.,.or RCTC determines that the explanation does not justify the
-lure to meet the applicable goal, RCTC may direct the
der/contractor to take appropriate remedial action. Failure to do
o shall be deemed a material breach of any contract or agreement or
grounds for disqualifying the bid.
d) If the contractor executes an agreement with a subcontractor which
it reasonably believes may be considered a DBE, the contractor shall
continue to receive credit for the work actually performed by the
subcontractor, even after RCTC makes a determination that the
subcontractor is not eligible for DBE certification. However, that
portion of the subcontractor's work actually performed after RCTC
makes a determination that the subcontractor is not eligible for DBE
certification may not be counted toward RCTC's overall DBE
Program goals.
-10-
6/22/99
UlUs.:0 7
F. Counting DBE Participation
Once a firm has been certified by Cal -DOT or other appropriate recipient of DOT -assistance
as a bona fide DBE, the total dollar value of the work actually performed by the DBE may be counted
toward the Program goal, provided the DBE performs a commercially useful function. In determining
what proportion of the expenditure shall be applied towards the DBE goal, the criteria set forth in
49 CFR Section 26.55 and the following shall apply:
(1) The total dollar amount of the contract actually armed by a DBE or a
subcontractor who is a DBE.
(2) When a DBE performs work forRCTC as part ol" otnt denture, the t€ fal
dollar amount equal to the distinct; }early def n d portic rE lFxorl� married
out on the contract by the DBE 44be touted towards t "$ l aI. (see
Attachments A and B)
(3) Only 60% of the expenditures fo et id: supplies required under the
contract and obtained from regular dealew t e DBEs, as defined in 49
C.F.R. Section 26.55, may counted toward the► Ord goals if the vendor
is not the manufacturer 1 lea o ch expeii es may be counted if the
DBE manufacturer is
(4) If the DBE is nota=manufac€urer or a a dealer, the following fees and/or
commissions.liay be counted, provided that the fee and/or commission is not
unreasonablxrt excesses as deteritined by RCTC as judged in comparison
with customary fees tr imilar services:
e fees or commissions rsons charged for providing a bona fide service,
s professional, technical, consultant or managerial services and
Ant'4, in the procurement of essential personnel, facilities,
=materials or supplies required for the contract may be
e fees charged for delivery of materials and supplies required on the
ob site (but not the cost of the materials and supplies) when the
hauler, trucker or delivery service is not also the manufacturer or a
regular dealer in the materials and supplies.
(c) The fees or commissions charged for providing any bonds or
insurance specifically required for the performance of the contract.
No prime contractor may terminate for convenience any DBE subcontractor listed in its bid
and perform the work with its own forces or those of an affiliate without RCTC's prior written
approval.
RVPUB\JFW1517541
L�JLi.03
-11-
6/22/99
G. Program Monitoring
The Liaison Officer shall be responsible for monitoring all aspects of the DBE Program,
including ensuring that all prime contractors and subcontractors on DOT -assisted projects are
applying, where necessary, the legal remedies set forth in 49 CFR Section 26.29 and under state and
local law. He or she shall require that applicants for DBE certification and DBEs to timely submit
all required documentation, including affidavits, to RCTC. Additionally, the Liaison Officer, or his
or her designee, shall ensure that DBEs submit all required documentation verifying tework actually
performed by DBEs on projects receiving DOT -assistance. To this end e Limon Officer, or his
or her designee, must obtain and tabulate payments made to DBE firms me contractors and
subcontractors on DOT -assisted projects) on all RCTC projcts>.receiving '1<'`assistance. No credit
toward overall or contractgoals shall begiven unless and until the ' `i ��� or his o er
designee, has confirmed that payment on a DOT -assisted irroject has. been act t BE
certified firm or individual.
6. REQUIRED CONTRACT PROVISIONS
A. Statement of Non -Discrimination
RCTC requires that each financial assi
statement:
1 include the following
"The recipient shall not discriminate on the bi ' sfrace, color, national origin, or sex
in the award and pez rnriance ofany DOT ,assisted contract or in the administration
of its DBE program s `'the requirements of49 CFR part 26. The recipient shall take
all necessary and Avsonable : under0 CFR part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination
in the award and_administ OT -assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE
TOm,ra ed by 49 R Its 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by
moment_ Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and
ns shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon
the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the
ay in se sanctions as provided for under part 26 and may, in
approp , refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the
Program' it Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.)."
RCTC requirest t its contracts with prime contractors and prime contractor subcontractors
acts shall include40e following provision:
nv..
RVPUB\JFW\517541
contractor, subrecipient or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of
ce, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor
shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR part 26 in the award and
administration ofDOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these
requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination
of this contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate."
-12-
6/22/99
work satisfactorily performed by any et
arising out of or related to this Agreeme
payment to its subcontractors of all retentc9
subcontract agreement, unless excuses;;;;
provisions of Section 1.1 below."
"1.1 Good Cause
B. Prompt Payment Provisions
RCTC requires that its contracts with prime contractors and prime
contractor/subcontractor contracting shall include the following provisions:
"No later than Thirty (30) working days after receiving payment of retention from
RCTC for work satisfactorily performed by any of its subcontractors for services
rendered arising out of or related to this Agreement, CONTRACTOR:' shall make full
payment to its subcontractors of all compensation due and owi under the relevant
subcontract agreement, unless excused by RCTC f ood cause pursuant to
provisions of Section 1.1 below."
"No later than Thirty (30) days after receiving payment of ret ,f
subcontractors for
TRACTOR shall Asti"make full
eld by it pursuant to the relevant
good cause pursuant to
ter.
CONTRACTOR'iay only del brie any payment obligation (or
retention) to anyf its subctntracto services rendered arising out of or
related to the Areeme 'where, i -`RCTC's sole •estimation, good cause
exists for such a delay or postpon rtent All such determinations on RCTC's
part that good c exis zfor the delay or postponement of
CONTRACTOR's p rn*.nr obligation to its subcontractor must be made in
' r to the time when payment to the subcontractor would have been
by CONTRACTOR."
requireii #tk ntracts with prime contractors and prime contractor/subcontractor
contracting shall include: owing provision:
"In addition to those contract remedies set forth under relevant provisions of
California law, either party to this Agreement may, where applicable, seek legal
red*, for violations of this Agreement pursuant to relevant provisions of49 C.F.R.
s 23 and 26, to relevant federal or state statutory provisions governing civil rights
alations, and to relevant federal and state provisions governing false claims or
`whistle blower' actions, as well as any and all other applicable federal and state
provisions of law."
RVPUBIJFW1517541
'- • PI 7t./ LI
-13-
6/22/99
D. Administrative Remedies
RCTC requires that its contracts with prime contractors contain the following provision.
"CONTRACTOR's failure to make good faith efforts to comply with RCTC's DBE
program shall be considered a material breach of this AGREEMENT and may give
rise to certain administrative penalties and proceedings, including, but not limited to,
those set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 26.107."
E. DBE Program Compliance
RCTC requires that its contracts with prime contraaors and pry eo 'cir subcontracfbr
contracting shall include the following provision:
"RCTC has established a DBE Program pus ,O49 C.F.R. Part ich applies
to this Agreement. The requirements and `r * of RCTC's DBE Program are
hereby incorporated by reference into t s k Failure by any party to this
Agreement to carry out RCTC's DBE3Pro u;res and requirements or
applicable requirements of 49 C.F.Rt ;26 shall b: ed a material breach of
this Agreement, and maybe groun r r nation oft is Agreement, or such other
appropriate administrative re #y Each to this Agreement shall ensure that
compliance with RCTC's: ;DBE Program Included in any and all sub -
agreements entered into hrich ariAebut of or belated to this Agreement."
7. CERTIFICATION STA:NARDS
Burden of
preponderaii
certification.
(as defined b
affidavits,#h requir
disadv stage status, as
be r atted where, in
cerOcation eligibility set forth below, insufficient evidence supports the affidavit of the firm,
ership or individ claiming such social and economic disadvantage status.
aline rsl or individual submitting bids to RCTC has the burden of proof by a
evide rd to show that it has met the requirements for DBE
etermlrr �garding DBE eligibility, social and economic disadvantage
ttablyr umed where the firm, partnership or individual has submitted
;siotoMpg documentation representing that it holds a social and economic
°below. The presumption of social and economic disadvantage may
estimation and in accordance with the procedures for determining
e RCTC has a reasonable basis to doubt an individual's or firm's claim of social
ectiocirti it shall require the individual or firm to demonstrate, by a preponderance
of tlence, that he or she falls within a category of social and economic disadvantage and may
institute, where applicable, a certification review proceeding as more fully described in Section 8
below.
All firms, partnerships, or individuals who do not submit affidavits asserting social and
economic disadvantage status, or whose assertion of social and economic disadvantage has been
-14-
RVPUB\JFW\517541
6/22/99
Uva4;-41
rebutted, will not be presumed to hold such a status and bear the burden of demonstrating to RCTC
that they are socially and economically disadvantaged.
B. Definitions
(1) "Disadvantaged Business" is a small business concern owned and controlled
by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.
(2) "Socially _ and Economically Disadvantaged I vidu;ls
individuals who are citizens of the United St lawfully admitted
(g)
permanent residents) and who are men,
Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian -P
Indian Americans and any other individuals found to be;a
Small Business Administration pint tra ction 8(a) o
Act. RCTC shall make a rebuttable; presumption that inidr a
following groups are socially and ethiiiitikal.17,y disadvantaged:
means those
(a) "Black or African Americans," wt
of any of the Black oups of
(b) Hispanic A cans
Rican, Cuban, Centr
Spanish Oture or origin, re
4frican Americans,
scans, or Astan-
. the
usiness
als in the
es persons having origins
lude iersons of Mexican, Puerto
erican, Portuguese or other
ss of race;
er i ans," which includes persons who are American
Eski, , Aleus *r Native Hawaiians;
an-Pac� �errcans," which includes persons whose origins are
pan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Burma (Myanmar), Vietnam, Laos,
":a. (Kampuchea), Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the
'Brunei, Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Trust Territories of the
epublic of Palua), the Commonwealth of the Northern
arianas Islands, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kirbat, Juvalu, Mauru,
erated States of Micronesia, or Hong Kong;
"'Subcontinent Asian Americans," which includes persons whose
origins are from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives
Islands, Nepal or Sri Lanka;
(0 Women;
Any additional groups whose members are designated as socially
and economically disadvantaged by the SBA; and
RVPUB\JFW1517541
tJ L '3 rr
-15-
6/22/99
(h) RCTC may determine that individuals who are not a member of one
of the above -listed groups are socially and economically
disadvantaged.
(3)
"Rebuttal ofPresumption ofDisadvantane" means there is creditable evidence
supporting a finding that an individual presumed to be socially and
economically disadvantaged has a personal net worth in excess of Seven
Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($750,000), or a reasonable basis to
believe that the individual is not a member of bov escribed socially
disadvantaged group.
(4) "Small Business Concern" means,a small bus d pursuant=o
Section 3 of the Small Business_ t and relevant re �R b d on�c aced
pursuant thereto. If a business i i"i t a s business co -not an
eligible DBE regardless of ow., by socially and onomically
disadvantaged individuals.
(a) In general, a small business concerna .mot include any concern or
group of concerns controlled by these Tally and economically
disadvantaged individual'.or individuals which has annual average
gross receipt `'6xcessc a million Over the previous three fiscal
years. (S t< 3 C.F.Rf Parl 14 ' This figure may be adjusted
from tim o time fo'in#latio
(b) In determining whether a particular business is a small business
concern, RC ..shall apply the standards established by. the Small
usiness A "Fart 121 et sec .) which may impose more
m. 'ctive ar oss receipt restrictions, depending on the type of
ess.
wned aad 1 dtrolled" is defined as a business concern that is at least 51
nt owr >by one or more socially andeconomically disadvantaged
s, or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent
k of which is owned by one or more socially and economically
antaged individuals, or, in the case of a partnership or limited liability
c, mpany,'at least 51 percent of the interest is owned by one or more socially
_:mod economically disadvantaged individuals, as demonstrated by the
substance, not merely the form, of these various ownership arrangements.
"Joint Venture" is an association of two or more businesses formed to carry
out a single business enterprise for profit, for which purpose they combine
their property, money, efforts, skills and knowledge.
RVPUB\JFW\5 17541
-16-
6/22/99
tiUCi. 43
Firms Not Presumed to Be Socially or Economically Disadvantaged
The RCTC has established a procedural form (see Attachment C) for the certification
determination of individuals who are not members of one of the presumed socially and economically
disadvantaged groups listed above.
(1) Individuals applying for certification who must meet the following criteria:
(d)
A.
Their business must be a small business c
They must have had a txperien b ntial and chronic
social disadvantage in American socie f� � ,`. vcountries.
They must possess at leash
social disadvantage: that
disadvantage stems from
handicap; long-term resid„
mainstream of American r aciety;'
control. "P.A
They must di onst'
advanceme;t''in the ljssirc
This may e determ ed by c
allowing fe vidual
ust feel that their Widual social
der; national origin; physical
ronrnent isolated from the
; nilar cause beyond their
mpact on entry into or
cause of social disadvantage.
ng the following:
I) ducat€a. They :,sari demonstrate they have been denied
equal, -:access to business or professional schools, curricula,
exclu oiiE 'social and professional association with
students;and"t'eachers, educational honors, or any other social
patterns of pressure which have discouraged them from
'ur .uing a professional or business education.
mployment. They can demonstrate unequal treatment in
hiring, promotions, professional advancement, or other terms
or conditions of employment.
(iii) Business History. They can demonstrate unequal access to
credit or capital, acquisition of credit or capital, or other
unequal treatment in pursuing and obtaining business
opportunities.
TIFICATION PROCEDURES
Unified Certification Program
Prior to March 4, 2002, RCTC intends to enter into an agreement with other DOT
RVPUBIJFW1517541
-17-
6/22/99
funding recipients in California in order to establish a Unified Compliance Program ("UCP"), which
shall establish a list of firms that have received state-wide DBE certification. RCTC intends to adopt
the UCP Directory, when implemented, to establish its DBE Program eligibility.
B. Initial Certification Program
Until it has entered a UCP agreement, RCTC shall establish procedures designed to ensure
that this Program secures only those firms which meet the DBE certification requirqiiehts, as defined
by federal law and regulations. RCTC may accept as evidence of eligib. cer cations made by
other recipients of DOT funding as more fully described in Se ion 5(B % drily, RCTC will use
Cal -DOT's certification determinations when evaluating DpEibligibill
In order to determine whether a firm is an eligible DBE u it its Mt a o DB
certification, RCTC shall, at a minimum, ensure that t have• : s y the
certifying agency:
(1) Perform an on to visit to the offices bid and to any job sites on which
the firm is working at the time of the eligi Ligation;
(2) Obtain the resumes andl t`_ o =dries of t} epri cipai owners of the firm
and personally intervi t
(3) Analyze the ownership of Eck in tl�€ i if it is a corporation, and analyze
the bonding and Financial; capacity othe firm;
(4) DeterrningifIe work history of tho.. rm, including contracts it has received and
work€t:hs comple
pile a list of equipment owned or available to the firm and the
e firm and its key personnel to perform the work it seeks to
BE Program; and
(6) tatement from the firm of the type of work it prefers to perform as
DBE Program.
When making d, rminations regarding certification, RCTC shall consider all facts contained
ecord as a whe. Additionally, all information provided by bidders or contractors that is
by contrac is being proprietary information and which RCTC reasonably determines is
tanfidential by RCTC to the extent allowed by law.
wf any time during the bidding process or after the applicant has been awarded a RCTC
contract, a change in circumstances has occurred affecting the applicant's ability to continue to claim
a DBE status, it must submit written notification, in the form of an affidavit, of this change and the
reasons therefor to RCTC within Thirty (3 0) days of the occurrence of the change. Where the factual
basis upon which a decision DBE certification has changed, RCTC may at any time conduct a
certification review of the firm prior to its regular time for recertification.
RVPUBIJFW\517541
-1 8-
6/22/99
certification requirements. Failure to provide t Ainti davit mays
recertification.
D. Reconsideration and R pplicatin Proc
:0
Any bidder whose contentft fgood faith efforts to comply with RCTC DBE Program goals
has been denied by RCTC shall lace an opp:' t nity at its request, to have the matter reconsidered
by RCTC. If so requested, adder will eve an•opportunity to meet with the Reconsideration
Officer, or his or her desinee. o discuss R.CTC's 'decision denying the good faith efforts claim of
the bidder, u�t ed, how e bidder present documentation and written argument prior to
such a recta #on meets . ssing the adequacy of the bidder's good faith efforts.
Subsequent to thtse� TC , RC shall provide a written response to the bidder, explaining the basis
for its dete r <matter. rsuant to 49 CFR section 26.53, RCTC's reconsideration
determing is not app ahib1i __lo the DOT.
Where RCTC has e rmined that any portion of DBE participation claimed by a contractor
t served a comme, ally useful function pursuant to 49 CFR section 26.55, the contractor may
de evidence to t Reconsideration Officer rebutting this finding on RCTC's part. Any
went determination by RCTC finding that a DBE did not serve a commercially useful purpose
» .ssisted projects may be appealed to the operation federal administrative, but not
Where required, RCTC shall make its determination of a firm's eligibility for initial DBE
certification within ninety (90) days of receiving all the required information from the applicant.
RCTC may extend the time in which to consider a firm's eligibility for DBE certification by an
additional sixty (60) days; provided written notice is given to the applicant of the delay in the
determination and the reasons therefor.
In the event RCTC determines that an applicant is not eligible for a DBE status, it shall
provide the applicant with written reasons why this determination has been mad li applicants
whose applications for DBE status have been denied by RCTC may app to the DOT pursuant to
the procedures and provisions of 49 CFR 26.89. "�`
C. Recertification Procedures
Unless the factual basis upon which the DBEs initial ecrt cation has chi r# `` r r sonable
grounds exists for a certification review, RCTC shall enstir-e,t pt 11 firms on its DB1~ Directory have
been recertified every three(3)
years, on or about the arm wersary date of its initial DBE
certification with RCTC. Additionally, the firm must. ;pr'ovide - and Cal -DOT with annual
affidavits by its owner(s) by the anniversary date of the firm's ink cation stating that there
have been no changes in the firm's circumstances tiding it abili€ + ntnue to meeting DBE
ounds for denial of DBE
Any firm whose DBE status has been denied by RCTC may not reapply for DBE certification
until Twelve (12) months have passed since the previous application was made. For purposes of
determining when this twelve month period begins to accrue, the date upon which the applicant
receives its written notice of denial from the RCTC shall be considered the date upon which the
application has been denied.
RVPUBIJFW1517541
-19-
6/22/99
E. Removal Procedures
Any person may file a complaint alleging that a firm currently on RCTC's DBE Directory may
not claim a DBE status; provided, however, any complaints must state the reasons therefor and
provide information supporting the complaint. The identities of individuals submitting such complaints
shall be kept confidential by RCTC pursuant to the terms of 49 C.F.R. Section 26.109(b). However,
in the event a decertification proceeding is commenced, the third party complainant shall be informed
by RCTC that the complaint will be disclosed to the firm sought to be decertified,
When seeking to remove firms that have already,, received f ` ``reification from its
Directory on the basis of a third party complaint or on the bash if -its own r " x e information and
belief, RCTC shall do the following: } '
(1) If RCTC determines that there ason te cause to d 'y tee firm,
RCTC shall provide the affect with notice of the- proposed
decertification and a statement of resostr;_the decertification. This notice
shall also include a statement to tlw.r.tir406. ified of its right to a hearing
on the matter. "`
RVPUB\JFW\517541
(3)
(2) RCTC shall appoint an wtdu to be officer e hearing who is familiar
with DOT DBE certification pr dues but who has not been involved in
RCTC's consideration of the firii tl view for decertification. This
individual may, lam# need not be, an adniinis€rative law judge.
A court rcp Pr, or other state -certified transcriber of public adjudicatory
proceediri s ' shall make a verbatim record of the decertification hearing
pro. oe ins. Should firm request DOT review of the hearing officer's
ft►. 41decisioNtgqTc shall provide a certified transcript of the hearing
reco rm at the firm's expense.
the hear #fie firm under consideration •for decertification shall be
pr ° i' ed an o - irtunit to respond to the reasons for the proposed action and
p y P P P
bility to provide information and arguments on the matter.
(5) ing officer shall make a determination on the matter based upon the
record and only based upon the grounds for decertification set forth below.
The hearing officer's decision shall also include a statement of decision and
> the reasons therefor as set forth in (6) below. However, the decision may not
be based on a reinterpretation or changed opinion ofthe information available
to RCTC at the time of the certification of the firm. The hearing officer's
decision affirming RCTC's proposed decertification decision must be based
on one of the following grounds:
(a) Changes in the firm's circumstances have occurred since the
certification of the firm that have rendered it ineligible for DBE
certification;
-20-
6/22/99
JLI.!:.'1
(b) Information was not available to RCTC at the time the firm was
certified which serves as an independent basis for the firm's
decertification;
(6)
(c) Information was concealed or misrepresented by the firm in previous
certification actions submitted by the firm;
(d) A change in certification standards has occurred sin the certifying
the firm; or
(e) A documented finding of .. " 'C err
certification of the firm.
The hearing officer shall provide
complainant, where applicable, w(
a statement of reasons for the deci
record supporting each reason
decision shall be provided to theRCTC.'
kY•
(7)
The firm shall remain
decertification has bed provi
F. DOT Review
rior or relevant
d entity=mil the decision regarding
ies.
An applicant may appeal Atiyeertification or deification denial made determination by
RCTC to the DOT pursuant to th rocedur and provisions of 49 C.F.R. Section 26.89. A bidder
may not appeal to the DOT a R TC deterroinatith t at it has not made good faith efforts to comply
with the DE Program...
9. ;and Enforcement
of all firms bidding on prime contracts or subcontracts on DOT
'contain the following information -
Address;
Firm's DBE or non -DBE status;
Age of firm; and
Annual gross receipts.
RVPUBIJFW1517541 , -21- 6/22/99
B. Monitoring Payments to DBEs
RCTC employs a record keeping system which will facilitate the monitoring of the DBE
Program.
This system provides necessary data for FTA compliance reviews and uniform reporting
requirements. Specifically, RCTC shall maintain records on the following:
(1) Procedures which have been adopted to implement ,this Program, including
technical assistance efforts and referralnd corms i fton procedures.
(2) Contracts awarded to DBEs, inc
value of the contract and/or sub
awards.
(3)
(4)
(5)
ng name o
tract andsv'r over
Specific efforts to identify and aw
and names of firms contacted and v f
names of DBEs responding and the pi
procurement was advertise
Payments made by Prime
of work, t.Otal
e BE
s to DBEs including the number
n a contract, the number of
in which the contract
,i ibcontractors.
All documentati n related to the me e ,of`overall DBE goals through race
neutral means aidd contractgoals. Data related to race neutral and contract
goals DBE ' ram aal»evements shall be kept and recorded separately.
Reporting rements
required by
administrative'i'
ry reports to the DOT, or other administrating agency, as
its annual DBE Program goals to the DOT, or other
equired by law.
10. P# :IC PA ;,TION AND OUTREACH
Adverti%fit of Notice to Bidders
RCTC, in addthn to any advertising required by law for construction bids, will provide bid
ation to the f. wing:
RV PUB\J FW\517541
Local and regional DBE focused publications, containing project description,
pre -bid meeting date, bid opening date and a notice to disadvantaged
contractors and/or subcontractors indicating that they may obtain lists of
prospective contractors as well as contract specifications from RCTC.
(2) Disadvantaged contractors and/or subcontractors who are identified as firms
that may render the necessary construction activity.
-22-
6/22/99
(3)
The following disadvantaged oriented contractor associations
Minority Contractors Association
Riverside County Builders Association
American Subcontractors Association
Southern California Regional Processing Council
B. Pre -bid Conference
(1) The contract specifications for construction pro
date, and place for the pre -bid confe ,ices, if a
Prospective contractors shall be provided wit n oppo
subcontracting requirements.
In addition, the conditions of
requirements, project details and:
C. Outreach Techniques
(1) RCTC employs vanau:,tiutrea
of the Program goa
(2) Such techni
Si.
1 designate the time,
their
and other equal employment
res shall be discussed.
ed to facilitate achievement
e, but my not be limited to:
ackagosaid requests for proposals so as to increase
€cipation;
assistance to DBEs in overcoming barriers such as the
obtain funding, financing or technical assistance;
dve mg contracting opportunities in a timely manner to the DBE
community allowing adequate time for the development of responsive
ad responsible bids;
Suggesting and encouraging the formation of joint ventures among
DBE and majority firms; and
Maintaining an "open door" policy for DBEs whereby they may seek
technical assistance on bid requirements, conditions and projected
procurement activities.
D. Information Services
The DBE Liaison Officer shall be responsible for developing and implementing procedures
by which DBE firms may be assisted in participating in RCTC procurement activities. RCTC shall
RVPUBWFW1517541
-23-
6/22/99
attempt to inform the DBE community with the nature, scope and requirements of the procurement
process through seminars, workshops and other related and applicable resources. Efforts shall
include compiling and maintaining a list of agencies which could offer assistance to DBEs in financial,
technical and personnel management, as may be appropriate in areas of need by DBEs. The list shall
include a description of the services provided by these agencies and will be available to interested
parties.
E Distribution List for DBE Policy Statement
(See Policy Statement at Attachment F)
Postings:
RCTC Web Page
RCTC Administrative Office
Inland Area Urban League
Greater Palm Springs Hispani
Coachella Valley Mexican Amereau
African American Chamber of COMM
Greater Riverside Chamber of Comm
F. DBE Mailing List - Media Cost s
RVPUBWFW1517541
(1) Press Enterprise
P.O. Box 792
Riverside,
(2) Los A
P.Q.
(4)
021
O. Box 2735
Springs, 92263-2735
ite
_fax 827
Colton, CA 92324
er of Commerce
nber of Commerce
KCAL TV -Radio Inland Empire Bureau
1009 S. Commuter Center West
San Bernardino, California
(6) Precinct Reporter
1677 W. Baseline
San Bernardino, CA 92411
-24-
,6122199
uthjA.J1
(7)
Hispanic Greater Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 5872
Riverside, CA 92507
(8) KDIF
1465 Spruce Street
Riverside, CA 92501
G. Internal Distribution of Policy Statement:
H.
Commissioner Jack van Haaster, ty of
Commissioner Tom Mullen, County of Riveji
Commissioner Bob Buster, County of Riverside
Commissioner John F. Tavaglio4,_ ty of Riversi'
Commissioner James A. VenabJe,,. >tity of Riverside
Commissioner Roy Wilson, County o `° rerside
Commissioner John Hunt, Ciiyap
Commissioner Jan Leja, City `Of Beauinoi
Commissioner Robert Cram .City of Blyf
Commissioner John M e ni , City of C to esa
Commissioner Eugene curb nna s, City o Canyon Lake
Commissioner Gregory S. Pettis; C fy f athedral City
Commissioner Juan M. DeLara, fty-ofCoachella
Commissioner Xndrea. . Puga, City of Corona
Commissioner Doug{Sherman, City of Desert Hot Springs
Commissioner Roblteeser Vie, City of Hemet
Co, sinner Percy L D f, City of Indian Wells
m i loner Chris':B..,S riva, City of Indio
omnt sio er John J. Pena, City of La Quinta
omniiissioii a evin W. Pape, City of Lake Elsinore
mmissioner 'rank West, City of Moreno Valley
issionerTrank Hall, City Norco
ssioner Dick Kelly, City of Palm Desert
stunner William G. Kleindienst, City of Palm Springs
Commissioner Al Landers, City of Perris
mmissioner Donald F. Yokaitis, City of Rancho Mirage
ommissioner Alex Clifford, City of Riverside
Commissioner Jim Smedley, City of San Jacinto
Commissioner Ron Roberts, City of Temecula
Commissioner Stan Lisiewicz, Caltrans District 08
airman
1. airma
Riverside County Transportation Commission Staff:
Executive Director
Deputy Executive Director
Directors
RVPUB\JFW\517541
-25-
6/22/99
Chief Financial Officer
Program Managers
Staff Analysts
11. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW
It is RCTC's intention to comply with all applicable federal laws, regu ions, or other
requirements governing its DBE Program, including, but not limi
requirements set forth 49 C.F.R. Parts 23 and 26 and those established
that any provision or procedure set forth in this Program cpfifflas or is
law, regulation or other requirement, the federal law, re -lion or oth
the implementation of this Program.
-26-
procedures and
SSE, To the extent
ent with any federal
ent shall go rn
RVPUB\JFW\517541
6/22/99
v�l'�Js V0
ATTACHMENT A
INFORMATION FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE STATUS
FIRM NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
(complete official name of company)
TELEPHONE
(complete street address - not P.O. b
OWNER
STATE
TIT
(or executive officer)
CONTACT PERSON
LEGAL STRUCTURE: Sole Proprietor_:.
If incorporated, indicate in whi `State
YEARS IN BUSINESS
BUSINESS LICENSE NO,
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE
PRIMARY BUSINESS
SECOND
NAME THI '
Date:
d number)
Corporation
BONDING CAPABILITY
CIT: 'WHERE LICENSED
DATE LICENSE EXPIRES
*likttfl“.c - what dees>your company do?)
AL CLIENTS
2
W SHALL WE LIST YOUR COMPANY ON OUR BID LIST'?
r
x4
Sub
Contractor
RVPUB\JFW\517541
A-1
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT A
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
Definition
"Disadvantaged business" ("DBE") means a small business concern: (a) which is at least 51 percent owned by one
or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least
51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; and
(b) whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more of the socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals who own it.
"Small business concern" means a. small business as defined pursuant to Secti,
relevant regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, except that a small business;+
or group of concerns controlled by the same socially and economicaflydrsadvanta
has annual average gross receipts in excess of $16.6 million over the -previous three
receipt ceilings may apply to particular businesses and services
"Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" means th
(or lawfully admitted permanent residents) and who are wome
Americans, Asian -Pacific Americans, or Asian -Indian American an
disadvantaged by the Small Business Administration pursuant to Secti
otherwise eligible individual whose personal net worth exams ten Hund
as a socially and economically disadvantaged for pur oe cfI B oertificatio
Small Business Act and
all not include any concern
'vidual or individuals which
yaw Lesser.armual gross
s who are citize °of the United States
ericans, Hispanic Americans, Native
-notifies or individuals found to be
the Small Business Act. Any
fly ($750,000) may not qualify
IS YOUR FIRM A DISADVANTAGED BUS SS AS DEFIN OVE? YES
,ASIS UPON WHICH YOU CLAIM DISADVANTAGED STA` J
ter`'
BLACK OR AFRICAN
AMERIC
IMP
NATI
WOMEN
THE FOLLO G INF
THOSE FIRMS CLAIMING E
If this fi
a DBE
docum
y 3ACIFIC AMERICAN
SAN -INDIAN AMERICAN
SBA 8(a) CERTIFIED
OTHER (Please explain)
NO
ECTIONSl through 9 & AFFIDAVIT) IS REQUIRED FROM ONLY
ANTAGED BUSINESS STATUS:
tr other firms, witl ny of these same officers, have previously received certification or participation as
uired by the fc. wing, please provide the name of the certifying agency and submit copies of the
It relied upo obtaining certification as a DBE.
RVPUBIJFW\517541
A-2
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT A
OWNERSHIP OF FIRM: Identify those individuals who own an interest of 5% or more in the firm. If the
firm is less than 100 percent minority owned, list the contributions of money, equipment, real estate, or
expertise of each of the owners.
A
NAME OF OWNERS
2. CONTROL OF FIRM:
3
a. Estimating
c. tznng o a ement personnel
d ur <p jor items or supplies
Supervision of fi `t rations
ETHNICITY
(RACE)
SEX
YEARS OF
OWNERSHIP
F
OWNERSHIP
PERCENTAGE
Identify by name, ethnicity, sex, and title in the firm the _individuals
are responsible for day-to-day management and ma
with prime responsibility for: .
(1)
Financial decisions
(2) Management decisions, su
(3) <
F , ach of those listed ove, provide a brief summary of the person's experience and number of years with
, indicating th ''person's qualifications for the responsibilities given him or her.
G
VOTING
PERCENTAGE
H
CONTRIBUTIONS
owners and non -owners) who
luding but not limited to, those
RVPUBIJFW1517541
l.ltJc��..1�
A-3
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT A
4. Describe or attach a copy of any stock options or other ownership options that are outstanding, and any
agreements between owners or between owners and third parties which restrict ownership or control of
disadvantaged business owners.
5. Identify any owner (see Item 1) or management official (see Item 2) of the namedrm who is or has been
an employee of another firm that has an ownership interest in or a present business relationship with the
named firm. Present business relationships include shared space, equipme cing, or employees, as well
as both firms having some of the same owners.
6. If this firm, or other firms with any of the same officrs,
participation as a DBE, please describe the circumstances surroun
What are the gross receipts of the firmfor eac 'f the las ree years?
Year ending 19 $
Year en.d�i'�
Year en
8. Name of bonding com1a� if ar'
47 t o authorized to d€i bus i ess in this state, as well as locally, including all necessary business licenses?
(NO)_ Indicate other state(s)
usly been denied certification of
enial.
RVPUB\JFW\517541
A-4
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT A
AFFIDAVIT
The undersigned swears that the foregoing statements are true and correct and include all material informatioi
necessary to identify and explain the operations of (name of firm) as well as
the ownership thereof. Further, the undersigned agrees to provide, through the prime contractor or, if no prime
contractor, directly to RCTC, complete and accurate information regarding actual work performed on the project,
the payment therefore and any proposed changes, if any, of the foregoing arrangements, and to permit RCTC and/or
its agents to audit and examine books, records and files of the named firm. Any material misrepresentation will be
grounds for terminating any contract which may be awarded and for initiating action under`applicable Federal or
State laws concerning false statements.
NOTE: If, after filing this Attachment A and before the work of rm is co%j
this regulation, there is any significant change in the information submitted, yotrm
through the prime contractor or, if no prime contractor, inform`CTC dir Iy_
SIGNATURE
NAME
TITLE
DATE
CORPORATE SEAL
DATE
STATE„.
COUNTY OF
NOTARY PUBLI
ON THIS DAY OF , 19_, before me appeared (name) to
me perso known, who beibg duly sworn, did execute the foregoing affidavit, and did state he or she was
properly orized by (name offirm ) to execute the affidavit and did so
as his o-, ; ,free act and deed<"
SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC
COMMISSION EXPIRES
RVPUB1JFW1517541
'1 - -�
V lJ Us.�/'.l
A-5
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT B
INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING
JOINT VENTURE ELIGIBILITY
(This form need not be completed if all joint venture firms are certified DBEs.)
1. Name of joint venture
2. Address of joint venture
3. Phone number of joint venture
4. Identify the firms which comprise the joint venture. (TIteDBE p r must ent A.)
a. Describe the role of the DBE firm in the joint ve#urer
b.
Describe very briefly the experience and bus ivalificati '
Name perience and Ou (Cation
5. Nature of the joint venture's pu
8 Ownershi
in resp€
9.
Profit and loss shAring
Capital contrib_., on, including equipment
Other appli50 ownership interests
of and par ation in this contract. Identify by name, race, sex, and "firm" those individuals (and
tve responsible for day-to-day management and policy decision making, including, but not
e with prime responsibility for:
SS
ch non -DBE joint venturer:
his ne ot be completed if described in the joint venture agreement provided
RVPUB\JFW\517541
B-1
6/22/99
i)Ii1 r; J�
ATTACHMENT B
NAME
a. FINANCIAL DECISIONS
b. MANAGEMENT
DECISIONS SUCH AS.
(1) ESTIMATING
(2) MARKETING &
SALES
(3) HIRING AND
FIRING OF
MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL
(4) PURCHASING OF
MAJOR ITEMS OR
RACE
SEX
TITLE
NOTE: If;=` er submitting this Attachment B and before the completion of the joint venture's work on the contract
covered l this regulation, there1s any significant change in the information submitted, the joint venture must inform
the RC T` ther directly or ough the prime contractor if the joint venture is a subcontractor.
AFFIDAVIT
The undersighe` swear that the foregoing statements are correct and include all material information necessary to
identify and explain the terms and operation of our joint venture and the intended participation by each joint venturer
in the undertaking. Further, the undersigned covenants and agrees to provide to the RCTC current, complete and
accurate information regarding actual joint venture work and the payment thereof and any proposed changes in any
of the joint venture arrangements and to permit the audit and examination of the books, records and files of the joint
venture, or those of each joint venturer relevant to the joint venture, by authorized representatives of RCTC or the
RVPUBIJF1M517541
u 0 60
B-2
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT B
Federal funding agency. My material misrepresentation will be grounds for terminating any contract which may be
awarded and for initiating action under Federal or State laws concerning false statements.
NAME OF FIRM
NAME OF FIRM
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
State of
County of
On this day :of before TO reed (Name) to me
personally known, ; ,being I r did ex the foregoing affidavit, and did state that he or she was
properly authorlze e of to execute the affidavit and did so as
his or her free act
RVPUBIJFW1517541
B-3
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT C
CERTIFICATION DETERMINATION
FIRM NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE
OWNER
I. DETERMINATION OF BUSINESS SIZE
A. SUBCONTRACTS OF $10,000 OR LESS:
1. Is the subcontract $10,000 or less?
2. Does your firm have 500 or less t
employees (including affiliates
B. SUBCONTRACTS OVER $10,0.i( AND P. 1N1E CTS:
1 Construction
Ge : "pnstructjQ
less than 75% of the work fall
into -f the following categories?
Yes r If yes, please indicate
the category below.
Plumbing, heating (except electric) and air conditioning
Painting, paperhanging, and decorating
Masonry, stone setting, & other stonework
Floor laying and other floor work
Roofing and sheet metal work
Concrete Work
Water well drilling
Plastering, drywall acoustical, and insulating work
Terrazzo, tile, marble and mosaic work
Carpentering and flooring
Installation or erection of buildings equipment
Structural steel erection
Glass and glazing work
RVPU$1JFW1517541
C-1
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT C
[]
[]
[]
Excavating and foundation work
Wrecking and demolition work
Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified
2) Is your firm's average
annual receipts for the
three preceding fiscal years
less than $12 million? Yes No_
b. Special Trade Contractors
1) Does your firm fall into one
of the following categories?
Yes No . If yes,
indicate the category?
Plumbing,heating(
[ ] Painting, paperhan ng. and dcowing
[ ] Masonry, stone setting, & onework
[ ] Floor layirt er floor i
[ ] Roofing } ii l work
[ ] Conc a Wor)w
[ ] War wellclaing``
f] stenng, drywall acOti tica[, and insulating work
[ ] errazzgotile, marble -and mosaic work
[ Carpentering and .flooring
Instatition,.pr.ei4tion of buildings equipment
Struiiiiiil l' erection
Glass-'a <l'azing work
:Excavating and foundation work
eking and demolition work
ecial trade contractors, not elsewhere classified
,;dour firm's average annual
eipts for the three preceding
fiscal years less than $5 million? Yes_ No_
of Manufactured Goods
oes your firm have 500 or less total
employees (including affiliates)? Yes_ No_
RVPUB\JFW\517541
C-2
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT C
3. Service Firms
a. Does your firm fall into one of the following categories? Yes_ No_. If yes, are
your average annual receipts for the three preceding fiscal years less than what is
indicated for your type of firm?
[ ] Engineering
[ ] Janitorial and custodial
[ ] Computer programming or
data processing 4.0 illior
[] Computer Maintenance
TO :Million
[ ] Protective Services
[ ] Others not mentioned in
13 CFR 121.3-8(e)
$7.5 Million
4.5 Million
II. DETERMINATIONS OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMI6i) ,ANTAGE
A. SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE
1. Elements of Social Disadvanta
d. Is your social disadvantage chronic, longstanding, and substantial?
Yes No_ If yes, explain in detail.
The individual must meekpe following sta
a.
Does your individual soul disadvaage stem from color; national origin; gender;
ndcap; long-term residence in an environment isolated from the
f Arnerican.zociet9., or other similar cause beyond your control?
If yes, plea explain in full detail.
Mu derrbnstrate that you have personally suffered social disadvantages?
If yes, please explain in detail.
c. f . Was your individual social disadvantage rooted in treatment which you experienced
in American society? Yes_ No_ If yes, explain in detail.
RVPUBIJFW\517541
C-3
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT C
e. Did your social disadvantage have a negative affect on your entry into, and/or
advancement in, the business world? Yes_ No_ If yes, explain in detail.
2. Evidence of Social Disadvantage
a. Education
1) Have you been denied
curricula, exclusion from
teachers, educational hon
has discouraged you from
Yes_ No_ If yes, expl;
b. Employment
o busin
ofessional ass
other social patt
anal schools,
nth students and
s of pressure which
rofessional or business education?
Have you been denied or crimina > ainst in hiring, promotions, other aspects
of professiodil idvanc nt, in pa , 'fringe benefits, other terms and conditions of
employm retaliato ehavior,*5' an employer, other social patterns or pressures
that have dianneled et into professional or non -business fields? Yes_ No_
If v Fain in d
been denied equal access to credit or capital, received credit under
e circumstances, discriminated against in receipt of government contracts,
ntial clients, excluded from business or professional organizations or other
lar factors which have hindered your individual business development?
s_ No_ If yes, explain in detail.
RVPUBIJFW\517541
C-4
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT D
ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE
1. Do you believe that your firm is economically disadvantaged? Yes_ No_ If yes, pleasL
explain and provide information to substantiate your belief.
CHALLENGE PROCEDURE
The identity of third party complainant (challenger) shall remai
C.F.R. Part 109 (b). However, where the challenge serves as a b
inform complainant that the confidentiality of his or her challenge
Challenged Firm:
Firm Name
Address
City, State and Zip Code
Telephone
Owner(
Challenging Party:
Name
Addr ;
State and Zip Code
Letter on File: Yes_ No_ Date filed with RCTC , 19_
DATE:
ttkal, at his or h € , pursuant to 49
ecertification determination, RCTC shall
dived.
RVPUBIJFW\517541
1 : 1
D-1
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT D
Is there a reason to believe that the challenged party is, in fact, not socially and economically disadvantaged?
Yes_ No_ If yes what is the basis for your belief?
If RCTC determines that there is reason to believe that the c
disadvantaged, follow Steps 1 through 7, below.
Steps:
1. Evaluation of information receive
2. Date both parties notifieif
3 Da; ,f hearing, i1
4.
5.
6.
is not socially and economically
4 3
199_
, 199_
ktridfitid: of the final determination in writing: 199
bblalion appealed to DOT?
Unknown
f s decision
RVPUB\JFW\517541
D-2
6/22/99
ATTACHMENT E
DATE:
DECERTIFICATION PROCEDURE CHECKLIST
(Steps To Be Taken Prior to Decertification)
1. Firm Name
Address
City, State and Zip Code
Telephone
Owner(s)
2. Notification of RCTC's concern regarding the firm's eligil?
Date notified (in writing)
Firm's Response
A. In person
B. Memorandum on File
C. In Writing
D. l€mss ion File
. .._ ' Date
4. Hearing Date
Yes No
s the Nree of Decision sent to the firm?
RVPUB\JF1N\517541
E-1
6/22/99
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
I POLICY STATEMENT
The Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") is committed to encouraging Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
("DBE") involvement in all phases of RCTC's procurement activities, including, but not limited to, Ifixed-price contracts, regular
purchases of goods and services, and special government grant procurement to the maximum eMent feasible.
II DEFINITIONS
"DBE" is defined as a small business that is owned and controlled one or more.Artiiiilv an onomically ditiydvantaged
individuals. "Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuitls" means those'individ to are citizens of the United
States (or lawfully admitted permanent residents) and who are ornen, Bak Americas ,-k t m ericans, Native
Americans, Asian -Pacific Americans, or Asian -Indian Americas _a any other minorities orother ti ideals found to be
disadvantaged. Any otherwise eligible individual whose personal nel worth is greater than Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($750,000) are excluded from obtaining a DBE status.
"Disadvantaged business" means a small business concern: (1) which is at 1e l ant owned by one or more socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals, or, in the case of any publicly owned l it least 51 percent of the stock of which
is owned by one or more socially and economically disadvanta individuals; ' () whose management and daily business
operations are controlled by one or more of the soci4191.aii 1 n tally disadva staged individuals who own it. "Small
business concern" means a small business as define C'by Section €ifihe S gall thiiiness Act.
III PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this program are to {i :identify and certify DB.wiirms which are qualified to provide required goods,
materials, supplies and/or services; (2) d eibp and implement i nforgniiiion and communication programs and procedures geared
to acquaint prospective DBEs witIiRCTC"scon tractingandprocu entproceduresandrequirements; (3) develop the necessary
interdepartmental relationship viii n;l CTC which ih prt t tc, foster and facilitate the implementation of this program; and
(4) contrit tit economy and growth o DEWS:
In striving t
extent feasible, t emj
on an annual basis;
means shall RC":
IV LIAISON`OFFICER
!(?T -assisted projects under this Program, RCTC is committed, to the maximum
s that term is defined in 49 CFR Part 26. Only after it makes a determination,
anticipation in its DOT -assisted project cannot be reached through race neutral
guests for information ,d/Or assistance should be directed to Paul Blackwelder, RCTC's DBE Liaison Officer, or Naty
`, haver. The Liaison Officer shall have full authority for the implementation and administration of this program.
Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman
Riverside County Transportation Commission
RV PUB\JFW1517541
F-1
6/22/99
Uu _6
ATTACHMENT G
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF PERSONAL NET WORTH
as of
A. Current Financial Assets 2.
1. Cash 3
2. Savings Account balances 4
3. Accounts/Notes/ 5
Rents Receivable
4. Retirement Accounts
5. Stocks/Bonds/Business or
Partnerships
(Exclude stocks/bonds held in applicant firm)
6. Life Insurance Policy
7. Total Current Financial Assets:
B. Property/Other Assets:
8. Real Estate: 4 :X 4
(Excludertll
9. Automobildwatfir
10. Furniture/cIo
11. Comp , t / Software
horn ' ce equipment
12.
Assets
13. e roperty/Other Assets:
C. Ti
(ad
Applicant Name
Signature
D. Liabilities
13)
1. Mortgage Loan(s)
(Exclude mortgage on primary residence)
id Taxes
went Accounts
Net Worth
(su rge E from line C)
}r rah
RVPUBIJFW1517392
Uvv�.11l
G-1
The undersigned swear that the foregoing statements are correct and include all material information necessary
for the determination of his or her personal net worth. Further, the undersigned covenants and agrees to
provide to the RCTC current, complete and accurate information regarding his or her personal net worth, and
any changes thereto. Any material misrepresentation will be grounds for terminating any contract which may
be awarded and for initiating action under Federal or State laws concerning false statements.
NAME OF FIRM NAME OF FIRM
SIGNATURE
NAME
TITLE
DATE
Date
State of
County of
On this
, to me personall
she was prop j authoriz
and did so is or her free
SEAL„..
NO
COMMISSION EXPIRES
ore
du wom,
e of Finn)
ed.
SIGNATURE
me appeared (Name)
did execute the foregoing affidavit, and did state that he or
to execute the affidavit
RVPUB\JFW\517392
G-2
F.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE(S)
1. POLICY 1
A. Policy Statement 1
B. Program Objectives 1
2. DEFINITIONS
2
3. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DBE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 3
A. Liaison Officer .. ,-:,:,:,;:,wa 3
B. Reconsideration Official ., _:� .xr,> 4
4. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ' >`
4
A. Financial Institutions .. . 4
4
5
D. Business Development and Mentor -Protegee Programs 5
5. DETERMINING, MEETING, AND COUNTING OVERALL A AL I 6
A. 6
B. 6
7
D. Contract Goals 7
E. Ensuring Good Faith Efforts"�.,.
8
(1) Good Faith Efforts in Contrast'Provisio -�{ 8
B.
C.
C.
F.
G.
DBE Directory
Over Concentration of DBEs
Method
DBE Eligibility
Race Neutral Means
(2) Bidders Failing to Achi e'the DBE GrOlIs '•`
Counting DBE Participation
Program Monitoring
9
11
12
6. REQUIRED O IRACT P qS 12
A. St t ;of Non-Dai.v. ,,., i : a � .•::
12
B. era PrQvts ..� 13
C. Legl_ Aru 13
D. Ad..W 14
E. DBE = 14
7. CERTIFICATION STA ` t#
A. > burden of Proof :' ` 14
14
Definitions
15
8. ' '1FICATION PROC URES 17
Unified Certific fcin Program
17
nitial Certj . ; on Program . . . . . 18
'dii Procedures 19
tion and Reapplication Procedures .. 19
(oval Procedures 20
DOT Review 21
9. Record Keeping, Monitoring and Enforcement 21
A. Bidders' List 21
B. Monitoring Payments to DBEs 22
C. Reporting Requirements 22
RVPUB\JFW1517392
1
10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OUTREACH . . . . . . , . - .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A. Advertisement of Notice to Bidders . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 22
B. Pre -bid Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
C. Outreach Techniques 23
D.
E
F.
G.
H.
Information Services 23
Distribution List for DBE Policy Statement 24
DBE Mailing List - Media Contacts: 24
Internal Distribution of Policy Statement: . . . 25
Riverside County Transportation Commission Staff: 25
11. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW 26
INFORMATION FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE STATUS .
INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING
JOINT VENTURE ELIGIBILITY ' ...
B-1
A-1
CERTIFICATION DETERMINATION C -I
CHALLENGE PROCEDURE . D-1
DECERTIFICATION PROCEDURE CHECKLIST
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:;::;:
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM ; F-1
I POLICY STATEMENT F-1
II DEFINITIONS ,
III PROGRAM OBJECTIVES f ` F-1
� '� F-1
IV LIAISON OFFICER F-1
E-1
STATEMENT OF PERSONAL NET WO R : G-1
Ow-
RVPUB\JFW1517392
-11-
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL REPORT
FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 1999 - JUNE 30, 2000
Karo Enterprises
Pamela V. Dowell
Linda B. Wright
u u 4.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL REPORT
FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 1999- JUNE 30, 2000
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with 49 CFR Section 26.45, Riverside County Transportation Commission
(Commission) has established an annual overall goal of 11.6 percent (11.6 %), subject to
the approval of the Commission, for fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 for the
participation of DBEs in all budgeted contracts utilizing DOT federal financial assistance.
The methodology used for establishing the annual DBE goal is consistent with those
identified in 49 CFR Section 26.45.
The Commission's overall annual goal is an expressed percentage of the total amount of
DOT funds the Commission anticipates expending during the fiscal year. The Commission's
annual overall goal is reflective of the amount of ready, willing and able DBEs that are
available to participate in contracting opportunities and is reflective of the amount ofDBE
participation the Commission would expect to achieve absent the effects of discrimination.
The Commission intends to meet the annual overall goal, to the maximum extent feasible,
through race -neutral measures as outlined further in this report.
PROJECTION OF FEDERALLY FUNDED CONTRACT EXPENDITURES
The Commission conducted a thorough analysis of the projected number, types of work
and dollar amounts of contracting opportunities that will be funded, in whole or in part,
by DOT federal financial assistance for fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000. The
Commission's projected budget for federally funded contract expenditures is $7,496,000.
Of this dollar amount, the projected contract/procurement opportunities are broken down
into the following categories:
Construction $5,741,000
Professional Services $1,755,000
Materials/Supplies/ Equipment $ 0
Other $ 0
Total $7,496,000
3
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BASE FIGURE
In accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Section 26.45, the Commission has
developed a base figure that expresses the availability of DBEs as a percentage of all
contractors and subcontractors in the relevant contracting markets. The methodology the
Commission followed was based on the guidelines listed as Alternative 2 of 49 CFR.
Section 26.45.
Available Businesses in the Commission's Relevant Contracting Markets
An analysis of the Commission's relevant contracting markets revealed that the
Commission solicits participation from contractors and subcontractors from the counties
of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles as its primary source; with Orange and
Ventura counties as secondary markets.
The Commission has projected that during the July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 fiscal year
$5,741,000 for construction will be contracted using federal funds. The Standard
Industrial Codes (SIC) used to determine and define the available businesses in the
geographical market areas, as mentioned above, are found in SIC 1600, Heavy
Construction. Except Building and SIC 1620, Heavy Construction, Except Highway, and
SIC 1700 Special Trade Contractors. An analysis of the US. Census Bureau, 1996
County Business Patterns for the five (5) counties, indicate a total of 1,279 of these firms
represent the number of all firms with these SIC code designation.
The Commission has also projected that during the July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 fiscal year
$1,755,000 for engineering will be contracted using federal funds. The SIC code used to
determine and define the available businesses in the geographical market areas, as
mentioned above are found in SIC 8700 Engineering and Management Services. An
analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 County Business Patterns for the five (5)
counties, indicate a total of 16,416 of these firms represent the number of all firms with
this SIC code designation.
Available DBEs in the Commission's Relevant Contracting Markets
The Commission conducted a similar analysis to determine the DBEs that are available to
participate as contractors and subcontractors in the projected contracts for fiscal year
July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000. The same geographical boundaries that were used above,
were also used to determine and define the available DBEs, along with the relative SIC
codes. Since the Commission receives funds from Caltrans, the current practice is to
accept DBEs with Caltrans certification. Therefore, the Caltrans certified directory was
used as the primary source for the identification ofDBEs in the related SIC codes, Caltrans
utilizes its own system of identification for DBEs called "Work Category Codes" (WCC).
The Commission conducted a comparative analysis of these WCC codes for construction
and found a total of 106 DBE firms in the following WCC codes:
Ii�JU•. t O
WCC, C67 - Sheet Metal
WCC, C0655 - Structural Steel
WCC, C9947 - Elevator
WCC, C0686 - Electrical
WCC, C0652 - Rebar
WCC, V1793 - Glass/Glazing
The Commission conducted a similar analysis to determine the DBEs that are available in
the same contracting market areas for engineering in the projected contracts for fiscal year
July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000. Again, using Caltrans' WCC code of C8700, Engineering
Services, indicate a total of 574 ready and willing DBE firms with this designation.
Adjustment of the Base Figure for Engineering
A review of the types of engineering projects that the Commission will expend with
federally assisted funds made it necessary to look at the total number of engineering firms
for the five counties and break down the base figure into sub -categories of work to better
define the number oftotal available firms in these areas ofwork. Therefore, further analysis
of the specific types of available engineering services opportunities were identified. The
total number of available engineering firms in these sub -categories equal to 4,595. The
following is a list of these sub -categories:
o Civil Engineering o Construction Engineering
o Electrical Engineering o Environmental Engineering
o Geotechnical Engineering o Mechanical Engineering
o Traffic Engineering
Calculation of Bate Figure
The Commission compared the available DBEs in the relevant contracting markets for
fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 to the available businesses in the relevant
contracting markets for the same period to determine the base figure.
EXAMPLE:
Base
Figure
(574 DBEs in SIC 8711) (106 DBEs in SIC 1600,1620
_ [ .23 +.76 x 100-
J
4,595 CBPs in SIC 8711 1,279 CBPs in SIC 1600, 1620
PROJECTION OF PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL GOAL TO BE ACHIEVED
THROUGH RACE NEUTRAL AND RACE CONSCIENCE MEASURES
Based upon the type of federally funded contracting opportunities for fiscal year July 1,
1999 - June 30, 2000, the Commission proposes to utilize race -neutral measures in 50%
of annual overall goal for fiscal year July I, 1999 - June 30, 2000. Race -neutral
participation includes any time a DBE wins a prime contract through customary
competitive procurement procedures or is awarded a subcontract on a prim contract where
the prime does not consider the firm's DBE status in making an award. The remaining 50%
will be achieved by establishing contract goals for particular projects that have
subcontracting opportunities. Any over concentration of DBEs in a particular trade will
be excluded from race -conscious contract goals.
ADOPTION OF TOTAL OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL
Upon approval of fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 overall goal of 11.6% is adopted
and approved by the Commission, unless otherwise directed, the Annual Goal Report will
be submitted to FTA for approval to meet the September 1, 1999 deadline, and May 1
deadline in succeeding years.
PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL
In accordance with 49 CFR Section 26.45 (g), the Commission will publish the proposed
annual goal in the following relevant market area newspapers:
The Press Enterprise
3512 14th Siren
Riverside, CA 92507
The Desert Sun
399 North "D"Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Los Angeles Times
430 N. Vineyard Ave
Ontario, CA 92503
The notice will include a statement that the methodology and proposed goal are available
for inspection by the public for 30 days from the date of publication. The notice will also
include a statement that the Commission will accept public comments to the proposed goal
and methodology for a period of 45 days from the date of publication and provide
instructions for the submission of comments. Upon receipt of public comments, a report
will be prepared for the Executive Director analyzing the public comments.
U +J 0
OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
The Commission is committed to achieve the annual goal for DBE participation through
a combination of race -neutral measures and contract goals for particular contracts with
subcontracting opportunities. Race -neutral methods will be utilized to the fullest possible
extent feasible to achieve the annual overall goal of 11.6 %. The Commission will engage
in the following race -neutral measures where appropriate:
•
•
Contract sizing
Provide technical assistance
Provide outreach and communications programs to DBEs
Provide business development activities
Distributing a DBE Directory and Bidder' s List(s) electronically and otherwise as
requested
UuCL
AGENDA ITEM 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Director of Plans and Programs
SUBJECT:
Reaffirmation of Conformity Findings of the 1998 RTP and RTIP
for PM10 Non -attainment Areas
At the May 12, 1999 Commission meeting, an item was placed on the agenda
regarding a conformity suspension on the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). This resulted in keeping
transportation projects requiring federal actions or approvals from proceeding. A list
of impacted projects in Riverside County was also distributed.
We received a memorandum from SCAG (attached) dated June 15, 1999 announcing
the reaffirmation of the conformity findings for the 1998 RTP and RTIP. Therefore,
all transportation projects may again proceed with federal approval or actions needed
for implementation.
BACKGROUND
On March 2, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled
in favor of the Environmental Defense Fund which challenged several provisions of the
Environmental Protection Agency's 1997 Final Transportation Conformity Rule.
Consequently, the conformity determination for the Southern California Association of
Governments' (SCAG) RTP and RTIP were "suspended" and transportation projects
which were non-exempt (capacity enhancements) could not proceed with any
necessary federal actions or approvals.
SCAG cdnferred with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and EPA on the
process needed to be undertaken to reaffirm the conformity determination and
immediately proceeded with modeling analysis based on appropriate emissions tests.
The modeling analysis and conformity determination was approved by the SCAG
Regional Council on May 11, 1999, and a 30 -day public comment period closed on
June 11, 1999. Having received no public comments, on June 14, 1999 SCAG
reaffirmed the conformity determination. The U.S. Department of Transportation
responded on June 15th, accepting the air quality conformity reaffirmation thereby
lifting the conformity suspension allowing affected transportation projects to proceed
with implementation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission receive
and file.
UTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
818 West Seventh Street
12th Floor
Los Angeles, California
90017-3435
t (213) 236-1800
f (213) 236.1825
www.scag.ca.gov
Officers: • President Supervisor Zee Yaroslaysky.
Los .Angelo Count) • Pint Vice President: Manor
Rom ts Cir. of Los Alamitos • Second Vice
P uncrclsor Kathy Davis. San Bernardino
C mmedate Past President Mayor Bob
Ban„ ..ur of Monrovia
Imperial County Torn Veyse), Imperial County •
David Dhillon El Centro
Los Angeles County Ironer Brathwanc Burke.
Los Angeles County • Zee Yaroslaysky Los Angeles
Count) • Eileen Ansan. Diamond Bar • Bob
Bartlett. Monrovia • Bruce Barrows Cerritos •
George Bass Bell • Hal Bernson Los Angela •
Robert Brunch- Rosemead • Laura Chick. Los
Angeles • Gene Daniels. Paramount • John Ferraro.
Los Angela • Michael Feuer. Los Angeles • Ruth
Galante:. Los Angeles • Jackie Goldberg. Los
Angels • Rat Grabuuki. Long Beach • Garland
Hardeman Inglewood • Dec Hardison. Torrance •
Mike Hernandez. Los Angeles • Nate Holden. Los
Angels • Keith McCarthy. Downey • Cindy
Misokosysiu Los Angeles • David Myers. Palmdale
• Pam O'Connor. Santa Monica • Jenny Oropeza•
Long Beach • Bob PinnJer• Redondo Beach •
Beatrice Proo. Pico Rivera • Mark Ridley -Thomas.
Los Angeles • Richard Riordan. Los Angeles •
Marone Shaw. Compton • Rudy Svorweh. Los
Angela • Paul Talbot. Alhambra • Joel Wachs. Los
Angeles • Rita Walters. Los Angela • Dennis
Washburn Calabasas • Paul Zee, South Pasadena
Orange County Charles Smith. Orange County •
Ron Bates. Los Alamitos -Mt Brown. Buena Pak •
Elizabeth Cowan. Costa Mesa • Jan Debay. Newport
Beach • Cathryn DeYoung, Laguna Niguel •
Richard Dixon. Lake Forest • Alu Duke. La Palma •
Bo Perry Brea
Riverside County: James Venable, Riverside
Count) • Dick Kelly. Palm Desert • Jan Lela.
Beaumont • Ron Loveridge. Riverside • Andrea
Puga. Corona • Ron Roberts.? mecula
San Bernardino County: Kathy Davis. San
Bernardino County • Ball Alexander. Rancho
Cucamonga • Jam Bagley.7wentymne Palms • David
Eshleman. Fonsara • Lee Ann Garcia. Grand iterate
• Gwen." Norton -Perry. Chino Hills - Ray Rucker.
Highland
Veit • ary. Judy Mikels. Ventura County •
Do 'la San Buenaventura • Andrew Fox.
Tho. aS •Toni Young. Port Hueneme
Riverside County Transportation Commission:
Robin Lowe. Hemet
Ventura County Transporruion Commission:
Bll Davit. Sim, Valley
SCAG Memorandum
Date: June 15, 1999
To- Transportation Conformity Working Group
Modeling Task Force '
Members
From:
Charles Keynejad, Senior Transportation Analyst
(213) 236-1915
keynejad@scag.ca.gov
Subject. The U.S. DOT Action
Reaffirmation of Conformity Findings of
the 1998 RTP and the 1998-05 RTIP
for PM10 Non -attainment Areas
On June 15, 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) reaffirmed the
conformity findings for the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the
1998-05 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) which had been
previously approved on June 9, 1998 and July 31, 1998 respectively. See the
attached U.S. DOT letter.
Today's conformity reaffirmation was made for PM10 (particulate matter less
than ten microns in size) non -attainment areas in the South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB), the Riverside County portion (Coachella Valley) of the Salton Sea
Air Basin (SSAB), and the San Bernardino County portion (excluding the
Searles Valley area) of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). This was in
response to the U.S. Court of Appeals March 2, 1999 ruling (EDF v. EPA),
that invalidated the use of submitted budgets for conformity findings and
required SCAG and U.S. DOT to re-examine the PM10 emission analysis
using an alternative permitted method.
This joint •action by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
Federal Transit Administration has lifted the conformity suspension from the
above noted affected areas of the Region. All sponsor agencies which had
been affected by the conformity suspension, may NOW IMPLEMENT
PROJECTS from the 1998-05 RTIP.
:/FEDReaf irmationJune99
kJ Jj.J•,r
® Printed on Recycled Paper 559-4/19/99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FFT)FR AT. TR ANSIT A1�9SST1�:SiA 1TION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
MP?rnnorit.rr4N OFFICE
201 N. Figueroa Strc , Suite 1460
Los Annies. California 90012
213-202-3950
June 15, 1999
Di REn.4 REFER TO
HSC-CA
Document # 312
Mr. Jose Medina, Director '
CALTRANS,1120 N Strrct
Sacramento, California 95814
Attention: Federal Resot`rces Branch, Room 3500
for Garland Hagen
Dear Mr. Medina:
SUBJECT: CONFORMITY DETERMINATION REATTIRMATION OF SCAG's 1998 RTP
AND 1998/99-2004/05 TIP
The U.S. DOT made a determination for the Southern CaTifornia Association of Government's
(SCAG) 1998 RIP on June 9, 1998, and the 1998/99-2004/05 RTIP on July 31, 1998. These
conformity procedures of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CA A) as provided within the
EPA's final rule on transportation conformity (40 CFR Part 51 and 93), as amended.
On March 2, 1999. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on the
Environmental Protecuon Agency's (EPA) 1997 Transportation Conformity Rule in response to a
suit filed by the Enrv:uounuciii.dl Dense Fund (EDP). The EDF challenged several provisions of the
1997 Final Rule pursuant to the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA statute
prohibits a metropolitan planning organ i7 Lion from approving and the United States Department
of Trxr,fipnrration (U.S. DOT) from funding any transportation project unless it comes from a
regional motion plan and program that conform to applicable state -level air quality standards..
T1ic Court found that certain chnitenged provisions of the 1997 Final Rate do not satisfy this
rev:dm:tient and violate the CAA.
As a result of the ruling, all previous conformity d erminnzion. that were based on submitted SIP
budgets were suspended (lapsed) until such time that the EPA made an adequacy Ending on the
submitted SIP or, the MPO and U.S. DOT reaffirmed the area's prior conformity determination
based on a demonstration that the apozok,Liate emissions tests were satisfied (i.e, the "build/no-
build" tit or the "less than 1990 levels" test). Since the conformity de ,nation of SCAG's 19<)8
RTP and RTIP was based on budgets for PM that were submitted, to U.S. EPA but not yet
JUN -16-99 WED 01:06 PM F1 A FliWA MEAO Or
FAX NO. 213 2023961 P. 03
This finding has been coordinated with the regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Sincerely,
/s/
Ery Poka Sandra A. Ralmir
Far Pot
Leslie A. Rogers
Regional Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
Jeffrey A. Lindley
Tivision Armor
Federal Highway Administration
CC:
SCAG, Mark Pisano
SCAG TIP Binder
FSTIP Binder
FHWA, HA -CA
FHWA, WRC
FHWA, HPR-CA, Karen Schmidt
FTA, Bob Horn
EPA, Sam Agrwa
Cainatts:
Raja Mitwasi, District 7
Federal Resources Branch, Dick Petrie
Office of local Proms, Deborah Mali
Environmental Division, Mike Brady and Bob Geiss
Uii'v�.;U4
AGENDA ITEM 14
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
CETAP Update
The CETAP integrated planning project is underway. Attached is the stakeholder letter
and listing of (12) public outreach workshops to develop public involvement in this
stakeholder driven planning project. By the June 28th Plans and Programs Committee
meeting the first four workshops will be completed.
This is the first of several outreach efforts planned for the project. The goal for the
first set of meetings is to provide an overview of the integrated planning effort and
obtain public input on issues and problems facing the various communities and the
County in the areas of transportation, habitat, and the County General Plan. In future
sessions we will be seeking input from the public on potential solutions which will be
evaluated vis a vis environmental, structural and fiscal constraints.
Also, included in Committee Member's agenda package is a copy of the integrated
planning project's initial public information brochure. Additional copies will be available
at the meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
GOUN
June 8, 1999
Dear Stakeholder:
RS IDE
BOB BUSTER
955.1010
JOHN F. TAVAGUONE
955.1020
.�-ND
AriPs\AN\
JUN 11 '99 /
JAMES A. VENABLE
155.1030
ROY WILSON
955.1040
TOM MULLEN
155-IOSO
On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission and board of Supervisors, we are excited to announce an
initiative that will proactively address important issues facing our region. This new and innovative approach will
improve the lives of Riverside County residents into the next century and beyond.
Known officially as the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP), this FIRST IN THE NATION process will tie three
vital planning efforts together and incorporate them into a comprehensive blueprint that will preserve and enhance the
quality of life for ourselves, children and grandchildren. These efforts include:
• Updating of the Riverside County General Plan (as required by law).
• Identification of new multi -modal transportation corridors through the Community and Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP).
• Creation of a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to identify habitat and preserve
open space, which will allow for the preservation of Riverside County's diverse natural resources.
The need for the Riverside County Integrated Plan is great and the evidence is ample. According to the Southern
California Association of Governments, Riverside County's population will nearly double to 2.8 million people by 2020.
This is equal to the current population of the State of Iowa and greater than the individual populations of over half ofall
the States in the Nation. We must be proactive in addressing the needs of our residents before the problems occur and
the cost of repairing the situation grows exponentially.
What makes this effort truly unique is that the public will drive it. This is the greatest single factor that will make
this process a success. From beginning to end, this three-year program necessitates input and guidance from citizens,
businesses, environmental advocates, and the organizations that represent them.. We can only succeed if every member
of our community is involved, including you.
Riverside County needs your participation in this effort. In the coming weeks, notification of town hall meetings
will be printed in local newspapers throughout Riverside County. Please note the date and time of the town hail meeting
in your area, and plan to attend this event to provide your thoughts and input. Ytrur interest and commitment to com-
pleting the Riverside County Integrated Plan is essential if we are to succeed. Thank you in advance for your support.
Sincerely,
)1d.iri7it'Venable
Supervisor
Third District
Jack van Haaster
Chairman,
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
grArrsideCposty
:e.aponteefoe Corunglgotion
Tom Mullen
Supervisor,
Fifth District
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • FOURTEENTH FLOOR • 4080 LEMON STREET • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
Internet—htpJ/wwM.wjIvasIde.u.us
Meeting Schedule
5:30 - Open House (refreshments will be served)
6:30 — Presentation
6:45 — Focus Group Activities
Date Meeting Location Meeting Address
June 17 Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street, Murrieta, Temecula
June 21 Raincross Square 3443 Orange Street, Riverside
June 22 Sheriff Station. 7477 Mission Blvd., Riverside
June 24 Corona Public Library 650 South Main Street, Corona
June 28 Moreno Valley City Hall 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley
Council Chambers
June 29 Palm Desert Public Library 73-300 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert
July 1 Beaumont City Hall 550 East 6th Street, Beaumont
Council Chambers
July 6 Lake Elsinore City Hall 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore
Council Chambers
July 8 Penis City Hall 101 North D Street, Perris
Council Chambers
July 13 Blythe City Hall 235 North Broadway, Blythe
Council Chambers
July 15 Valley Wide Park Wheatfield Park, Menifee
& Recreation Center
July 16 Kay Ceniceros Senior Center 29995 Evans Street, Sun City
AGENDA ITEM 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
June 28, 1999
TO:
Plans & Programs Committee
FROM:
Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager
THROUGH:
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Rail Program Update
At the Committee's direction, recent rail reports and other pertinent information are
reproduced in a side packet for Committee meetings. Staff will be available to review
these materials and make oral presentation if desired.
4
•
�J .1 , . u
ATTACHMENT TO AGENDA ITEM #15
Who is involved in the process?
Most importantly —the public; this must be a
bottom -up process. This is what will make
this effort truly unique and set it apart from
anything else ever attempted. Any plans we
develop will only work and be acceptable to
the public if the residents of our County are
involved from beginning to end.
Public input will also include various
stakeholders —those who have a particular
or specific interest in the plan —including
environmental organizations, building
associations, and property owners, as well as
the government agencies like cities,
Riverside County, the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) and state
and federal agencies.
How much will it cost?
The entire process is estimated at $20
million over a three-year period. Given
Riverside County's current population of 1.4
million people, this represents an
expenditure of less than $5 per resident per
year for the three years of the process. The
cost of not proceeding with these planning
efforts would be exponentially higher. This
process is designed to identify problems
before they occur, thus saving taxpayer
dollars in the future.
How will Riverside County
Pay for the Process?
The Riverside County Integrated Plan is
expected to cost $20 million, $9.5 million of
which has already been appropriated. The
balance will be funded over the three years
of the effort and most is expected to come
from state and federal sources for which the
County has already applied.
Now long will it take?
The process will take approximately 3 years to
complete.
How Can I Participate in
the Process?
Attend a public meeting, fill out a
questionnaire, write or call toll free:
(877) 684-7802
Web site: www.rcip.org
E-mail: rcip@sverdrup.com
Coordination at Each Organizational Level
BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
CO(
46,
�i� LOMB
5v, SrR � tF.
Sti s.k
Ct ca vtrotviam 0,1}r
Fti oO~ LxOu4 \NO
fOk
TRA' :70'A ON
Riverside County Integrated Plan
The three efforts: General Plan, Transportation, and Habitat Conservation Open Space are tied
together at every level, from the Board of Supervisors and the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCM at the policy level; to the advisory committees made up of residents and
stakeholders concerned with each of the three issues.
BITAT
CO SERYATION
OPEN SPACE
Phase 1
Vision Process
Technical Studies
Sept 99
Public
Meetings
on Drntt
Vision
May 99
Phase 2 > Phase 3
Plan. Developmen
Including Environmental Studies
Nov 99 May 00 May 01
Riverside County Integrated Plan
The plan will be developed in three phases and the public will be involved at each point.
The entire process is expected to take three years.
Timeline
May 02
iNt
C
QUESTIONS & ANS
what is the Riverside
County Integrated
Planning Process?
The Riverside County Integrated
Planning process is a comprehensive
three part program to determine future
planning, transportation, and conserva-
tion needs for Riverside County resi-
dents for both current and future
generations.
What are the goals of
this effort?
They are threefold:
1) Update the County General Plan
(which is required by law),
2) Create a Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, and
3) Identify transportation corridors to
solve the County's future trans-
portation needs.
In essence, the result of this process is
to make Riverside County the best
place to live, work, and play.
Jd #�
Why does the County of
Riverside need to have an
Integrated Plan?
California is now home to over 33 million people—
one out of every eight people in the United States. Its
economy is the 7th largest in the world.
Reasonable estimates expect the State to add
another 18 million citizens by the year 2020, with
much of this growth occurring in the five southern
counties of San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange, San
Bernardino, and Riverside. Riverside County
alone is expected to double in population by the
year 2020.
In Riverside County alone, the Southern
California Association of Governments projects
that population will double from 1.4 million to
2.8 million by 2020. That is equal to the current population of the state of Iowa and larger than
the individual populations of over half of all the states in the nation. Another study by the
California Department of Finance indicates that the County will continue to grow to 3.5 million
by 2030 and 4.5 million by 2040.
Inevitably, the crush of such a population boom and the challenge of balancing the associated
housing, transportation and economic needs with limited natural resources and the
environment becomes critical to our very survival in terms of California's position as a national
and world leader and the needs of Riverside County's current and future residents and
businesses.
Striking a balance among these potential competing interests has historically proven to be
elusive. Conflicts between land use and conservation, created by California's growing
population, have all too often resulted in adversarial battles; usually on a project -by -project or
species -by -species basis. Accomplishments were usually small or fragmented, and rarely
offered comprehensive, long-term solutions serving broad -based interests.
Recognizing the need for a new and different approach, the County of Riverside has set out to
develop a unique planning model to address the needs resulting from the oncoming population
explosion. The model, officially known as the Riverside County Integrated Planning process,
consists of three overarching principles:
1) The process must be a bottom -up process —the public must drive it.
2) Everyone, from private landowners and various stakeholder groups to the state and
federal governments have a financial responsibility to ensure its completion and
implementation.
3) As the name suggests, a recognition of the interdependence between the region's
future transportation, habitat, open space, and land-use/housing needs.
Acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of the general plan, transportation needs, and
environmental needs is absolutely essential. Without solving the conservation issues, the
identification of new transportation corridors or manufacturing bases simply isn't possible.
0fJ
1) Update the County General Plan
2) Create a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
3) identify transportation corridors to solve the County's future
transportation needs.
What Questions Have to Be Answered to Complete each of the Three Parts of the Plan?
Riverside County's General Plan will be a blueprint for the County's future —and just like
the blueprints for a house, to be successful it has to take into account a number of thin =s —
the lay of the land, the kind of house the owners want, building and safety codes, and how
the people who live in the house will use the space.
A General Plan is the blueprint for a County. It describes the future growth and develop-
ment within the County over the long term. It
acts as a constitution for both public and private
development, the foundation upon which our
leaders will make growth and land -use related
decisions. The General Plan is meant to express
the community's goals with respect to both
human -made and natural environments and
sets forth the policies and implementation mea-
sures to achieve them for the welfare of those
who live, work, and do business in the County.
It is meant to make Riverside County a great
place to live.
The Riverside County General Plan is divided into eight parts, or elements
addresses a particular issue in community development.
The eight elements are Land Use, Circulation,
Conservation, Housing, Open Space, Safety, Noise and
Air Quality.
At this very first phase of the process —it is important for
the people preparing the plan to know what you think.
As you participate in helping develop a vision for
Riverside County, please tell us —
If you had it in your power to change any one thing
about the community you live in, what would it be?
Why?
Would you want your children
to grow up in Riverside County
and raise their own families
here in the future? Why?
. Each element
Natural resources and their conservation are a part of the
integrated planning process. Both nationally and at the state
level, laws exist to protect plants and animals and to
understand how people —their homes, their businesses, their
movements and their recreation —will affect the environment
we all share. The California Natural Communities
Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) of 1992 was passed in order
to promulgate a collaborative conservation planning
effort between the public, businesses and government in
order to address future regionwide conservation needs
while still feasible. Laws also exist which protect the
rights of property owners and current land uses.
A plan that determines how we will balance these factors
in Riverside County is good for everyone. It allows open
space and nature preserves to be set aside in some areas
while permitting development and growth in others. It
will address the potential impacts of urban growth,
natural habitat loss and species endangerment. It allows
us to realize a vision for our County that is planned and
implemented in a feasible, coordinated fashion. This
process also brings conservation issues to an interactive, local level. In essence,
this plan will attempt to give assurances of habitat conservation, species
protection and management, program costs, and development certainty to
participants including cities; the County; the wildlife agencies; the
development, agriculture, and environmental communities; and the public at
large.
We want to know what you think.
How does conserving natural resources fit into your quality of life?
How do you think natural resources fit into Riverside County's future?
In southern California, transportation is an economic, quality of life, and practical issue. People need to get to and
from work, the county's employers need to transport and receive goods, and we all have to breathe the air.
Population and employment growth in Riverside County is expected to bring about traffic increases between 80%
and 200% on existing freeway facilities in the western County and will increasingly
strain the arterial system as well. The transportation program is more than just a plan, it
is a multimodal effort that considers not only highway options but also looks at transit
and other forms of travel demand management.
Riverside County is home to some of the busiest transportation corridors in the nation.
Growth and the changes that go with it have the potential to cause a transportation
nightmare that could strangle our regional economy and reduce our regional quality of
life. The transportation program for Riverside County must address not only today's
transportation needs but where transportation needs will arise next.
The people and businesses of Riverside County are a critical resource in developing
a transportation system that will give us the future we want. In developing a vision
for Riverside County's future, we need to know —
What transportation corridors should be further developed to accommodate
future growth in Riverside County? How should we allocate our transportation
resources between highways and other
modes of travel in specific corridors?
The transportation program can be thought of
in three phases. The first, a vision phase, will define problems and issues
and identify corridors for detailed evaluation. The second, the detailed
analysis phase, will develop alternatives within each selected corridor
and evaluate those alternatives in order to recommend one in each
corridor. The final phase, closure, will result in decisions regarding the
recommendations.