Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 13, 2013 CommissionComments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9 :3 0 a.m. / Wednesday, March 13, 201 3 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside  COMMISSIONERS  Chair – Karen Spiegel Vice Chair – Marion Ashley Second Vice Chair – Daryl Busch Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Deborah Franklin, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Randy Bonner, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Scott Matas / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Ty Peabody, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Michael Wilson, City of Indio Frank Johnston / Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / To Be Appointed, City of Lake Elsinore Scott Mann / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Tom Owings / Marcelo Co, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik / To Be Appointed, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat / Steve Pougnet, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris Ted Weill / Scott Hines, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Basem Muallem, Governor’s Appointee RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, March 13, 2013 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2 . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3 . ROLL CALL 4 . PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 13, 2013 Page 2 5 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 13, 2013 6 . PUBLIC HEARING – RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTEREST IN A PORTION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 249 -060-033 LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER RELATED USES FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected properties and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the resolution of necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owners. 3) Adopt Resolution of Necessity No. 13-002, “Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition of a Temporary Construction Easement Interest in a Portion of Certain Real Property, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel No. 249-060-033 Located in Riverside, California, for the Construction and Other Related Uses for the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Extension Project in Riverside County, California”. 7 . ADDITIONS / REVISIONS – The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 13, 2013 Page 3 8 . CONSENT CALENDAR – All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 8 A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 11 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended December 31, 2012. 8 B. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR STATE ROUTE 91 TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY SERVICES Page 17 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 10-31-099-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 10-31-099-00, with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) to provide continued investment-grade traffic and revenue study services for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) by augmenting the agreement in the amount of $205,000, comprised of $186,855, plus a contingency amount of $18,145, to cover potential changes in scope, for a total amount not to exceed $1,190,877; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the agreement. 8 C. FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM 2013 CALL FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS Page 23 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the release of the 2013 Surface Transportation Program Call for Rehabilitation Projects (2013 STP Call for Rehabilitation Projects) in the amount of $12.5 million in federal STP funds. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 13, 2013 Page 4 8 D. ACQUISITION AND SURPLUS OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT VAN BUREN AND INDIANA IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE Page 27 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the purchase and acquisition of real property, APN 234-250-013 (Parcel 2) for the amount of $29,000 and APN 234-250-030 (Parcel 1) for the amount of $148,325 from the city of Riverside (Riverside), for a total cost of $177,325; 2) Declare as surplus the real property purchased and acquired from the city (APN 234-250-013 and 234-250-030); and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus property for sale to the public. 8E. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RIGHT OF WAY MANUAL RELATED TO RELOCATION ASSISTANCE APPEALS Page 30 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to Section 7-3 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Right of Way Manual. 8F. AMENDMENT TO COMMISSION’S RAIL PROGRAM SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Page 37 Overview This item is for the Commission to amend the Commission’s Commuter Rail Program’s FY 2004/05, FY 2009/10, FY 2010/11, and FY 2011/12 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) to reflect the reallocation of Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds of $12,861 from the rail car procurement, $730,580 from the La Sierra Station parking lot expansion project, and $640,686 from the station plan plus interest accrued since January 1, 2013, to the Perris Valley Line closed circuit television (CCTV) and operations control center projects. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 13, 2013 Page 5 8G. AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS FOR TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT SERVICES Page 40 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 13-62-072-00 to Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) for triennial performance audit services for an initial term through December 31, 2013, covering the triennial performance audits for FY 2009/10 – FY 2011/12 with an option for a second term through December 31, 2016, covering FY 2012/13 – FY 2014/15, for a total contract amount not to exceed $207,740; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. 9 . PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 BUDGET Page 60 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2013/14 Budget. 10. STATUS OF STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM – FORMULA FUNDS Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the status report on Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) allocations. 11. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MODERNIZATION Page 69 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive information on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) modernization efforts in Sacramento; 2) Ratify membership in the CEQA Working Group and endorse the Policy Principles for CEQA Modernization; and 3) Provide direction for further advocacy. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda March 13, 2013 Page 6 12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 14. CLOSED SESSION 14A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGA L COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Number(s): RIC 1113896 1 5 . ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting and is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 10 , 2013, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Second Vice Chair Daryl Busch at 9:38 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Kevin Jeffries led the Commission in a flag salute. At this time, Chair Karen Spiegel arrived at the meeting and assumed the Chair. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Roger Berg Kevin Jeffries Steve Adams Ben Benoit Frank Johnston Marion Ashley Bob Botts Andrew Kotyuk John J. Benoit David Bricker Bob Magee Tom Owings Daryl Busch Scott Mann Greg Pettis Mary Craton* Scott Matas Jeff Stone Joseph DeConinck Glenn Miller John F. Tavaglione Ginny Foat Ron Roberts Rick Gibbs Adam Rush Berwin Hanna Larry Smith Douglas Hanson Karen Spiegel* Jan Harnik Ted Weill Terry Henderson Ella Zanowic Steven Hernandez *Arrived after the meeting was called to order 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 9, 2013 M/S/C (Gibbs/Rush) to approve the minutes as submitted. Abstain: Smith 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS Per staff’s request, Agenda Item 7E, “Agreement with TR Design Group for Architectural/Engineering Services for the Modification of Existing Buildings Required for the Construction of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project”, has been pulled from the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Henderson/Hanna) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. 7A. AGREEMENT FOR TRUSTEE SERVICES 1) Award Agreement No. 13-31-063-00 to The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (BNY Mellon) for trustee services on the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) for a five-year period with additional option periods in five-year increments, in an amount of $12,000, plus a contingency amount of $1,000, for a total amount not to exceed $13,000 for the initial five-year term; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. 7B. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3 (Q3) 2013. 7C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2012. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 3 7D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. 7F. AGREEMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1) Approve Agreement No. 13-45-075-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,606,567 in state funding for FY 2012/13; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7G. FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SUPERVISION 1) Approve Agreement No. 13-45-074-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide overtime supervision and operation of a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County in an amount not to exceed $522,515; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8. MEASURE A WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF MURRIETA FOR INTERSTATE 15/LOS ALAMOS ROAD BRIDGE Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager, provided an overview of the Measure A funding agreement with the city of Murrieta for the Interstate 15/Los Alamos Bridge project. M/S/C (Henderson/B. Benoit) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 13-31-053-00 with the city of Murrieta for Measure A funding of $2.9 million for the Interstate 15/Los Alamos Bridge project; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. At this time, Commissioner Mary Craton arrived at the meeting. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 4 9. TRADE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT FUND PROJECTS – GRADE SEPARATIONS Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager, provided an overview of the reprogramming of Proposition 1B Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF), federal Surface Transportation Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds – grade separation projects. In response to Commissioner Adam Rush’s request, Tanya Love provided the funding specifics for the Clay Street and the Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard grade separation projects. In response to Commissioner Terry Henderson’s question regarding the reprogramming of project savings, Tanya Love discussed the California Transportation Commission’s policy guidelines for reprogramming funds and opportunities in Riverside County. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, provided further details regarding the programming of TCIF funds, citing the Colton Crossing project savings that were returned to the Southern California region. At Commission Henderson’s request, Anne Mayer provided details regarding the Colton Crossing project such as project development, environmental and construction lead agencies, and funding. She stated the project is under construction, with no cost to the Commission. Commissioner Larry Smith explained there are a number of projects coming in below the engineer’s estimate and asked how long staff believes that will continue. Anne Mayer replied bid prices are coming in much closer to engineer’s estimate over the past year. There have been discussions about material cost escalation that will trigger bid prices to increase. In response to Commissioner Ginny Foat’s question regarding the use of project savings to supplant projects, Tanya Love replied project savings cannot be used to supplant projects because TCIF funds are subject to proportionality. Anne Mayer added the other challenges are the costs must be reduced proportionally by fund type and federal funding can no longer be moved around because there is insufficient time before construction to amend the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), which controls the allocation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 5 M/S/C (Mann/Gibbs) to: 1) Reprogram a total of $13,408,334 in Proposition 1B Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) project savings to the following four grade separation projects: a) $5,065,324 – Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard; b) $746,613 – Clay Street; c) $3,996,397 – Magnolia Avenue/BNSF; d) $3,600,000 – Riverside Avenue; 2) Revise the funding distribution between federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; 3) Remove $2,626,968 in CMAQ funds and replace the same amount with STP funds for the Iowa Avenue grade separation project; and 4) Program $4,349,603 in STP funds to the county of Riverside (County) for the Magnolia Avenue/BNSF grade separation project. 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 11A. Commissioner Bob Botts announced the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2013 Regional Conference and General Assembly is scheduled for May 2-3, 2013, which will include the critical issue of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform. 11B. Commissioner Smith announced the Mid County Parkway (MCP) and SR-79 projects environmental impact reports (EIRs) are being circulated and expressed his gratitude to Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, for her due diligence and hard work. At this time, Commissioner Steven Hernandez left the meeting. 11C. Commissioner Henderson expressed appreciation to staff for a successful Commission Workshop including the informative CEQA reform discussions. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 6 11D. Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk expressed appreciation for his appointment as a Metrolink board member alternate and commended Chair Spiegel for her leadership at the Metrolink Board. 11E. Anne Mayer:  Provided an update on the Metrolink financial deficiency discussions and stated the Commission will remain engaged;  Expressed appreciation to the Commissioners for a successful Commission Workshop;  Announced the MCP and the SR-79 realignment projects EIRs are out for public review and comment, including the public hearings schedule. The public comment periods close March 11 and March 25, respectively. 11F. Chair Spiegel:  Expressed appreciation for a successful Commission Workshop; and  Discussed the goals of the Metrolink Board related to its financial issues. At this time, Commissioners Douglas Hanson, Glenn Miller, Adam Rush, and Ted Weill left the meeting. 12. CLOSED SESSION 12A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Number(s): RIC 1113896 There was no announcement from the Closed Session item. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Chair Spiegel adjourned the meeting at 10:37 a.m. in honor of those who lost their lives related to the recent manhunt for Christopher Dorner. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 13, 2013, in the Board Room, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 7 Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6 PUBLIC HEARING Agenda Item 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: William Von Klug, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition of a Temporary Construction Easement Interest in a Portion of Certain Real Property, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel No. 249-060-033 Located in Riverside, California, for the Construction and Other Related Uses for the Perris Valley Line Project in Riverside County, California STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected properties and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the resolution of necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. 3) Adopt Resolution of Necessity No. 13-002, “Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition of a Temporary Construction Easement Interest in a Portion of Certain Real Property, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel No. 249-060-033 Located in Riverside, California, for the Construction and Other Related Uses for the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Extension Project in Riverside County, California”. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is being asked to consider the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity declaring its intent to acquire a temporary construction easement interest in a portion of certain real property, by eminent domain, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel No. 249-060-033, for the construction and temporary related uses for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project in Riverside County, California. 1 Agenda Item 6 The immediate need for the property acquisition is to proceed with the construction of the PVL project. The acquisition is required for and will benefit the community by serving an estimated 4,350 riders daily, eliminating thousands of vehicle trips per day on Interstate 215 and State Route 60, operating through the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris, adding four new stations and bringing commuter rail service to major employment centers. A preliminary title report was obtained from Lawyers Title Insurance Company to confirm and identify the record owner of the parcel affected by the PVL project. The Commission then served the affected property owner with a notice of the Commission’s decision to appraise the property. The Commission had the property appraised and made an offer to the record owner. Negotiations have been unsuccessful for the purchase of the portion of the property necessary for the project; however, the adoption of a resolution of necessity for the property will not prevent negotiations from continuing. Since an agreement has not been reached with the owner of record, it may be necessary to acquire the temporary construction easement described in the attachment by eminent domain. The initiation of the eminent domain process is accomplished by the Commission’s adoption of a resolution of necessity for the affected property. Description of Property to be Acquired Assessor Parcel No. 249-060-033 is owned by Cole ID Riverside CA, LP, a Delaware limited partnership. The property is located in Riverside County, California, and is referred to as the larger parcel. The larger parcel is improved with an industrial building. A temporary construction easement over a portion of the larger parcel is necessary for the PVL project, as defined and described in Exhibit A of the resolution. Project Description The PVL project will extend commuter rail service to the I-215 corridor. The project will benefit the public by reducing automotive congestion and will enhance safety by providing an alternative mode of transportation along I-215. In conjunction with this project, the city of Riverside intends to widen Palmyrita Avenue along the northern portion of the street, adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) railroad tracks. The Palmyrita Avenue widening project will begin approximately 400 feet east of the BNSF railroad tracks, and will extend approximately 800 feet west of the BNSF railroad tracks. Palmyrita Avenue is proposed to have two lanes of traffic traveling in each direction, in addition to sidewalks, curbs and gutters situation along both sides of the street, as to match 2 Agenda Item 6 what is existing along Palmyrita Avenue east of Northgate Street and California Avenue. Hearings and Required Findings The action requested of the Commission at the conclusion of this hearing is the adoption of a resolution of necessity, authorizing the acquisition of real property interest by eminent domain. The property owner is Cole ID Riverside CA, LP, a Delaware limited partnership. The property is further identified in the legal definitions, descriptions and depictions attached as Exhibit A to the resolution. California eminent domain law provides that a public entity may not commence with eminent domain proceedings until its governing body adopts a resolution of necessity, which resolution may only be adopted after the governing body has given each party with an interest in the affected property, or their representatives, a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on the following matters: 1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and 4. The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. A notice of the hearing was sent by first class mail to the property owner, and stated the Commission’s intent to consider the adoption of a resolution, the right of the property owner to appear and be heard on these issues, and that failure to file a written request to appear would result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission scheduled this hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date of notice was mailed may appear and be heard. The Commission’s legal counsel mailed the required notice to the property owner, Cole ID Riverside CA, LP, in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1245.235. The property owner was also invited to meet with Commission staff to address any concerns the property owner may have with the design of the project in the manner proposed and the necessity of the acquisition. The four required findings are addressed as follows: 1. Public Interest and Necessity Require the Proposed Project The acquisition of the property is necessary to construct the PVL project, which will reduce traffic congestion and enhance safety, as well as provide 3 Agenda Item 6 an alternative means of transportation by providing commuters with a convenient, safe and traffic free alternative to the I-215. 2. The Project is Planned or Located in a Manner that will be Most Compatible with the Greatest Public Good and the Least Private Injury A thorough analysis was conducted to find the single best location for this project. Environmental analyses and findings indicate that these sites uniquely satisfy the engineering, public health, and environmental issues, and this location is the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 3. The Property Sought to be Acquired is Necessary for the Proposed Project As described above, a careful analysis was performed regarding this location and what property and property rights were needed, and this parcel meets all the desired characteristics for the construction of the improvements for the project. 4. The Offer of Just Compensation has been Made The appraisal and appraisal review were prepared by Joyce L. Riggs, MAI, SR/WA of Riggs & Riggs, Inc., and Sydney H. Hawran, of Hawran & Malm, LLC, respectively, to establish the fair market value of the real property the Commission is seeking to acquire from the interest owned by the property owner identified herein. An offer of just compensation was made to the property owner to purchase the property interests, based on the approved appraisals, as required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code. Although negotiated settlements may still be possible, it would be appropriate to commence the procedures to acquire the portion sought through eminent domain, to ensure that the property will be available to meet the time frames associated with the construction of the Project. Environmental Analysis The Commission certified that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Report (EIR) for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project on July 25, 2011. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) was approved and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on May 24, 2012. Fiscal Impact There are no fiscal impacts. 4 Agenda Item 6 Notice of Public Hearing A Notice of Hearing to Property Owner was mailed on February 25, 2013, to Cole ID Riverside CA, LP, a Delaware limited partners, the owner of record. Attachment: Resolution No. 13-002 5 BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 13 -002 RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTEREST IN A PORTION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 249-060-033 LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER RELATED USES FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE COMMUTER RAIL EXTENSION PROJECT IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the “Commission”) proposes to acquire a temporary construction easement interest in a portion of certain real property, located in Riverside County, California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel No. 249-060-033, for the construction and other related uses for the Perris Valley Line commuter rail extension project in Riverside County, California, pursuant to the authority granted to it by section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Commission scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., at the County Administration Building, Board of Supervisors Chambers, at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, and gave to each person whose property is to be acquired and whose name and address appeared on the last equalized county assessment roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear at said hearing and be heard on the matters referred to in section 1240.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and WHEREAS, said hearing has been held by the Commission, and the affected property owner was afforded an opportunity to be heard on said matters; and WHEREAS, the Commission may now adopt a Resolution of Necessity pursuant to section 1240.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure. There has been compliance by the Commission with the requirements of section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure regarding notice and hearing. Section 2. Public Use. The public use for the temporary construction easement interest in the property to be acquired is for rail improvement for the Perris Valley Line commuter rail extension project in Riverside County, California. Section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes the Commission to acquire, by eminent domain, property necessary for such purposes. Section 3. Description of Property. Attached and marked as Exhibit “A” is the legal description and plat map, respectively, of the interest to be acquired by the Commission, which describes the general location and extent of the property with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. Section 4. Findings . The Commission hereby finds and determines each of the following: (a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; (c) The property defined and described in Exhibit “A” is necessary for the proposed project; and (d) The offer required by section 7267.2 of the California Government Code was made. Section 5. Use Not Unreasonably Interfering with Existing Public Use. Some or all of the real property affected by the interest to be acquired is subject to easements and rights-of-way appropriated to existing public uses. The legal descriptions of these easements and rights-of-way are on file with the Commission and describe the general location and extent of the easements and rights-of-way with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. In the event the herein described use or uses will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described interest subject to such existing public use(s) pursuant to section 1240.510 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Section 6. More Necessary Public Use. Some or all of the real property affected by the interest to be acquired is subject to easements and rights-of-way appropriated to existing public uses. To the extent that the herein described use or uses will unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, the Commission finds and determines that the herein described use or uses are more necessary than said existing public use. Counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described real property appropriated to such existing public uses pursuant to section 1240.610 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Staff is further authorized to make such improvements to the affected real property that it determines are reasonably necessary to mitigate any adverse impact upon the existing public use. Section 7. Further Activities . Counsel for the Commission is hereby authorized to acquire the hereinabove described real property in the name of and on behalf of the Commission by eminent domain, and counsel is authorized to institute and prosecute such legal proceedings as may be required in connection therewith. Legal counsel is further authorized to take such steps as may be authorized and required by law, and to make such security deposits as may be required by order of court, to permit the Commission to take possession of and use said real property at the earliest possible time. Counsel is further authorized to correct any errors or to make or agree to non-material changes in the legal description of the real property that are deemed necessary for the conduct of the condemnation action, or other proceedings or transactions required to acquire the subject real property. Counsel is further authorized to reduce or modify the extent of the interests or property to be acquired so as to reduce the compensation payable in the action where such change would not substantially impair the construction and operation for the project for which the real property is being acquired. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March, 2013. ___________________________________ Karen Spiegel, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission BLANK 9 10 Resolution of Necessity March 13, 2013 Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Extension Project Cole ID Riverside CA LP PALMYRITA AVE COLE ID RIVERSIDE CA, LP= - APN 249=060-033 ►0 • 't ' etl. sac # s-�. e, J COLUMBIA--AVE COLE ID RIVERSIDE CA, LP Temporary Construction Easement Riverside, CA 0 100 200 Feet v = TCE (6,036 sq. ft.) Parcel Boundary Epic Land Solutions, Inc. This map was created using the best data available at the time of production. Epic Land Solutions Inc. assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of third party information. This map is intended for data visualization only and should not serve as the basis for any legal action or be used for engineering purposes. 3/1/2013 •The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. •The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. •The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project. •An offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner in compliance with Government Code Section 7267.2. Attempts to negotiate acquisition ROW maps with design options were sent to the manager of the businessthatoccupiesthepropertyandthepropertyowneronAugust21,2012.Bothpartiesassistedinchoosingthedesignoftheproposeddriveway. The First Written Offer was mailed to the property owner’s corporate officeonDecember14,2012. Since the Offer was delivered,the consultant has made 11 attempts todiscussthedesignandacquisitioncostwithcorporateheadquartersandtheirattorneys. The property owner is not responding to the consultant’s attempts forresolutionortothemaileddocuments. •In conclusion,staff will continue to negotiate with the property owner to reach an agreement on the parcel discussed today. •Moving forward with obtaining a Resolution of Necessity is necessary to keep the project on schedule. •Staff recommends that the Commission move forward with adopting this Resolution of Necessity. AGENDA ITEM 8A Agenda Item 8A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended December 31, 2012. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the last six months of the fiscal year, staff monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year. Period closing accrual adjustments are not included for revenues earned but not billed and expenditures incurred for goods and services received but not yet invoiced, as such adjustments are normally made during the year-end closing activities. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the second quarter at 34 percent of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenues to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and remits these funds to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two-month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections through October 2012. On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues are 13.14 percent and 11.76 percent higher, respectively, than the same period last fiscal year. Staff will continue to monitor the trends in the sales tax receipts and report to the Commission any necessary adjustments to the FY 2012/13 budget for sales tax revenues. Federal, state, and local revenues are on a reimbursement basis. The Commission will receive these revenues as eligible project costs are incurred and invoiced to the 11 Agenda Item 8A respective agencies. Approximately $50.5 million of budgeted federal reimbursement revenues are related to the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project. During the FY 2012/13 budget process, the Commission took a conservative approach in estimating the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $4 million passed through from Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) as a result of the housing sector. The budgeted balance of $1.257 million relates to the TUMF Zone reimbursements from WRCOG for the 74/215 interchange project. Staff will invoice WRCOG for TUMF Zone reimbursements as eligible expenditures are incurred in the third quarter. Other revenues include property management revenues generated from properties acquired in connection with the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). The Commission took a conservative approach in estimating interest income for FY 2012/13, as a result of flat interest yields on invested balances. The expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget with the following exceptions: • Professional services are under budget, and remaining budget authority is not expected to be exceeded in the last half of FY 2012/13; • Support costs are under budget due to unused budget authority for station maintenance and repair, and utilities; • Program operations expenditures are under budget and reflect vendor invoices for program management submitted through November 2012; • Operating and capital disbursements are made as claims are submitted to the Commission by the transit operators; • Special studies are under budget due to unused budget authority for project, planning, and monitoring and rail feasibility studies. The Commission will use the authority as the studies are developed; • Local streets and roads expenditures are related to the timing of Measure A sales tax revenues as previously explained. These financial statements reflect expenditures made to the local jurisdictions related to collections through October 2012; • Regional arterial expenditures primarily represent expenditures for the highways and regional arterial program administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). CVAG requests reimbursements from the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority; and • Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for hardware and software improvements and station security improvements. 12 Agenda Item 8A Debt service interest expenditures on the 2010 bonds are made in December and June, while interest expenditures on the 2009 bonds are made monthly due to the variable rate nature of the bonds. Principal payments on the 2009 Bonds and the 2010 bonds are made in June. Debt proceeds consist of commercial paper and bond issuances. The Commission issued $20 million in commercial paper notes during the first quarter. A significant portion of the debt proceeds are expected to occur in the fourth quarter in connection with the issuance of sales tax and toll revenue bonds for the SR-91 CIP. Approximately $444 million of the budgeted debt proceeds relate to an anticipated federal loan through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). Based on discussions with TIFIA staff regarding the loan administration, loan proceeds will be received as eligible design-build costs are incurred. Therefore, this portion of the budgeted debt proceeds will not be received in FY 2013/14. The following list discusses the significant capital projects (i.e., budgeted costs in excess of $5 million) and related status. Capital project expenditures are generally affected by lags in invoices submitted by contractors and consultants, as well as issues encountered during certain phases of the projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be based on aggressive project schedules. Highway Engineering/Construction/Design-Build/Right of Way/Land SR-91 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Project – Caltrans completed design work, and expenditures remain within the budget authority. Utility relocation are substantially complete contractors continue to perform relocation of utilities and submit invoices for expenditures incurred to date. Staff is overseeing right of way acquisition, which has been certified; four acquisitions are pending settlements. Construction began in April 2012 and is managed by Caltrans. 71/91 Interchange Project – The preliminary engineering and environmental phase was completed in late FY 2010/11. The availability of federal earmark funds allows the final design phase of work to move forward. Procurement for the design consultant was awarded at its February 2012 Commission meeting. Notice to proceed was issued in March 2012, and the design phase has started. Completion is forecasted for the third quarter of FY 2013/14. SR-91 CIP (design-build) – The Commission is actively engaged in the financing activities for this project including the issuance of sales tax and toll revenue bonds and approval of a TIFIA loan. Early right of way acquisition work was approved by Caltrans in April 2011. Following the public comment period ending in July 2011, early acquisition work began. Right of way expenditures for FY 2011/12 are weighted toward the end of the fiscal year due to the long lead time to close escrow on property purchases. The design-build request for proposals was issued in July 2012 and proposals were submitted on January 29, 2013. The 13 Agenda Item 8A environmental document was approved and the record of decision signed and approved by the Commission in November 2012. The 30 day public comment period ended in December 2012 with no comments. The environmental document approved by the Commission has the authority to acquire required properties through eminent domain, if necessary. Agency, utility, and railroad agreement work continues with certain agreements now completed and with others in various stages of completion. I-15 CIP – Work on the environmental phase continues. Toll feasibility work evaluated various project options in the Commission’s current funding environment; these options were presented to the I-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee at several meetings. The ad hoc committee recommendation for a revised project scope was approved at the 2013 Commission workshop. I-215 South Widening Project from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road – Construction began in July 2011; completion of construction was in September 2012. I-215 Central Widening Project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road – Final design and right of way acquisitions related to the project are complete. Advertising for the construction bids occurred in the first quarter of FY 2012/13. Notice to proceed for construction was issued December 10, 2012, with the first working day starting in January 2013. Rail Engineering/Construction/Right of Way/Land PVL Project – Final design is complete. Federal Transit Administration continues working on finalizing the Small Starts grant agreement, which is anticipated to be completed at the end of the third quarter of FY 2012/13. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and will notify the Commission of any unusual events. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements – December 2012 14 Revenues Sales tax 211,212,500$ 72,064,724$ (139,147,776)$ 34% Federal reimbursements 73,151,900 706,397 (72,445,503)1% State reimbursements 17,917,800 3,592,304 (14,325,496)20% Local reimbursements 2,688,700 258,204 (2,430,496)10% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 5,257,300 2,774,597 (2,482,703)53% Other revenues 882,800 268,053 (614,747)30% Interest 7,265,900 2,933,823 (4,332,077)40% Total revenues 318,376,900 82,598,102 (235,778,798)26% Expenditures Salaries and benefits 6,971,100 3,369,765 3,601,335 48% Professional and support Professional services 14,678,800 4,356,478 10,322,322 30% Support costs 5,321,240 1,993,967 3,327,273 37% Total Professional and support costs 20,000,040 6,350,445 13,649,595 32% Projects and operations Program operations - general 16,574,500 4,107,928 12,466,572 25% Engineering 27,912,060 4,531,023 23,381,037 16% Construction 126,014,100 8,797,451 117,216,649 7% Design Build 29,050,000 5,837,856 23,212,144 20% Right of way/land 109,562,795 20,222,190 89,340,605 18% Operating and capital disbursements 97,710,490 39,299,389 58,411,101 40% Special studies 800,000 14,444 785,556 2% Local streets and roads 39,357,000 13,794,130 25,562,870 35% Regional arterials 20,400,400 1,058,123 19,342,277 5% Total projects and operations 467,381,345 97,662,534 369,718,811 21% Debt service Principal 126,800,000 - 126,800,000 N/A Interest 16,613,000 7,708,612 8,904,388 46% Total debt service 143,413,000 7,708,612 135,704,388 5% Capital outlay 447,700 43,944 403,756 10% Total Expenditures 638,213,185 115,135,300 523,077,885 18% Excess revenues over (under) expenditures (319,836,285)(32,537,198)546,458,922 10% Other financing sources/(uses) Operating transfer in 327,567,190 31,193,662 (296,373,528)10% Operating transfer out (327,567,190)(31,193,662) 296,373,528 10% Debt proceeds 1,220,172,000 20,000,000 (1,200,172,000)2% Total financing sources/(uses)1,220,172,000 20,000,000 1,200,172,000 2% Net change in fund balances 900,335,715 (12,537,198)1,746,630,922 -1% Fund balance July 1, 2012 556,693,300 575,578,619 18,885,319 103% Fund balance December 31, 2012 1,457,029,015$ 563,041,421$ 1,765,516,241$ 39% QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANPORTATION COMMISSION 2ND QUARTER FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2012 FY 2012/13 BUDGET 2ND QUARTER ACTUAL PERCENT UTILIZATION REMAINING BALANCE 15 BLANK Revenues Sales tax 1,080,000$ -$ 34,118,465$ 320,369$ 10,947,234$ 22,391,830$ 3,206,826$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 72,064,724$ Federal reimbursements 4,060 - 702,337 - - - - - - - - 706,397 State reimbursements 33,685 1,212,014 2,346,605 - - - - - - - - 3,592,304 Local reimbursements 43,416 (16,329) 231,117 - - - - - - - - 258,204 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee - - 124,182 - - - - 2,650,415 - - - 2,774,597 Other revenues 8,752 517 258,784 - - - - - - - - 268,053 Interest 13,518 6,953 222,118 - 21,014 80,775 49,164 78,278 911,606 11,267 1,539,130 2,933,823 Total revenues 1,183,431 1,203,155 38,003,608 320,369 10,968,248 22,472,605 3,255,990 2,728,693 911,606 11,267 1,539,130 82,598,102 Expenditures Salaries and benefits 2,003,258 46,531 1,260,114 - 728 - - 59,134 - - - 3,369,765 Professional and support Professional services 355,044 70,153 3,712,188 - 768 - - 218,325 - - - 4,356,478 Support costs 1,516,576 123,614 353,688 - - - - 89 - - - 1,993,967 Total Professional and support costs 1,871,620 193,767 4,065,876 - 768 - - 218,414 - - - 6,350,445 Projects and operations Program operations - general 569,746 932,878 2,517,377 - - - - 87,927 - - - 4,107,928 Engineering 22,465 - 3,968,836 - - - - 539,722 - - - 4,531,023 Construction - - 4,382,502 - - - - 3,229,425 - 1,185,524 - 8,797,451 Design Build - - 5,837,856 - - - - - - - - 5,837,856 Right of way/land - - 18,412,189 - - - - 500,372 1,114,006 195,623 - 20,222,190 Operating and capital disbursements 5,271,638 - 2,196,102 - 2,250,000 28,871,499 710,150 - - - - 39,299,389 Special studies - - 14,444 - - - - - - - - 14,444 Local streets and roads - - 9,642,229 320,369 3,831,532 - - - - - - 13,794,130 Regional arterials - - - - 1,058,123 - - - - - - 1,058,123 Total projects and operations 5,863,849 932,878 46,971,535 320,369 7,139,655 28,871,499 710,150 4,357,446 1,114,006 1,381,147 - 97,662,534 Debt service Principal - - - - - - - - - - - - Interest - - - - - - - - 10,579 - 7,698,033 7,708,612 Total debt service - - - - - - - - 10,579 - 7,698,033 7,708,612 Capital outlay 4,793 - 39,151 - - - - - - - - 43,944 Total Expenditures 9,743,520 1,173,176 52,336,676 320,369 7,141,151 28,871,499 710,150 4,634,994 1,124,585 1,381,147 7,698,033 115,135,300 Excess revenues over (under) expenditures (8,560,089) 29,979 (14,333,068) - 3,827,097 (6,398,894) 2,545,840 (1,906,301) (212,979) (1,369,880) (6,158,903) (32,537,198) Other financing sources/(uses) Operating transfer in 8,099,313 - 17,661,724 - - - - - 1,061 - 5,431,564 31,193,662 Operating transfer out - - (5,640,054) - - (8,099,313) - - (16,102,172) (1,352,123) - (31,193,662) Debt proceeds - - - - - - - - 20,000,000 - - 20,000,000 Total financing sources/(uses)8,099,313 - 12,021,670 - - (8,099,313) - - 3,898,889 (1,352,123) 5,431,564 20,000,000 Net change in fund balances (460,776) 29,979 (2,311,398) - 3,827,097 (14,498,207) 2,545,840 (1,906,301) 3,685,910 (2,722,003) (727,339) (12,537,198) Fund balance July 1, 2012 13,685,227 7,255,419 240,237,824 556 17,346,594 92,088,969 43,854,533 73,224,071 31,143,594 5,651,884 51,089,948 575,578,619 Fund balance December 31, 2012 13,224,451$ 7,285,398$ 237,926,426$ 556$ 21,173,691$ 77,590,762$ 46,400,373$ 71,317,770$ 34,829,504$ 2,929,881$ 50,362,609$ 563,041,421$ GENERAL FUND FSP/ SAFE WESTERN COUNTY PALO VERDE VALLEY COACHELLA VALLEY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND SALES TAX BONDS COMMERCIAL PAPER DEBT SERVICE COMBINED TOTAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUALS BY FUND 2ND QUARTER FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2012 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) MEASURE A SALES TAX 16 AGENDA ITEM 8B Agenda Item 8B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement for State Route 91 Traffic and Revenue Study Services WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 10-31-099-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 10-31-099-00, with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) to provide continued investment-grade traffic and revenue study services for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) by augmenting the agreement in the amount of $205,000, comprised of $186,855, plus a contingency amount of $18,145, to cover potential changes in scope, for a total amount not to exceed $1,190,877; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project Description The SR-91 CIP is part of the Commission’s 2009 Measure A Western County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan. The SR-91 CIP will widen the SR-91 freeway with a new general purpose lane from Interstate 15 to the Orange County line, improve ramps and local interchanges throughout Corona, reconstruct portions of the 15/91 interchange, and extend the existing 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County. 17 Agenda Item 8B Project Funding Plan The proposed project funding plan consists of three key sources: 1) Toll Revenue Bonds – Issued by the Commission and repaid from future tolls. 2) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Loan – Subordinate debt to the toll revenue bonds to be obtained by the Commission from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) TIFIA program and repaid from future tolls. 3) Commission Contribution – To be funded by the Commission from Measure A sales tax revenues, both on a pay-as-you-go basis and through sales tax revenue commercial paper and bonds issued by the Commission. 4) State Funds – State Transportation Improvement Program and State-Local Partnership Programs Funds The successful sale of toll revenue bonds and project financing is dependent on many factors including the preparation of an investment grade traffic and revenue study. This traffic and revenue study needs to support the Commission obtaining investment-grade toll revenue bond ratings from Moody’s Investor Service (Moody’s), Fitch Ratings (Fitch), and/or Standard & Poor’s Rating Service (S&P). Recent Investment-Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Services Stantec successfully prepared an investment-grade traffic and revenue study for the project and has continued to support the Commission in various efforts not originally anticipated at the time of the award of the contract in July 2010. In the fall of 2011, the Commission sought a preliminary investment-grade rating of the SR-91 CIP financing from Fitch to improve the competitiveness of the Commission’s TIFIA funding requests. Stantec provided traffic and revenue sensitivity data and analysis as requested by Fitch and participated in both team working meetings and the formal rating presentation. In the spring of 2012, Stantec assisted staff in the development of the Commission’s 91 Express Lanes toll policy ultimately adopted by the Commission in June 2012. This toll policy adoption was crucial to substantiate both the investment grade traffic and revenue study revenue projections and the Commission’s financial plan for the SR-91 CIP. Since August 2012, Stantec has been supporting the Commission with the TIFIA application by providing additional information and sensitivity data and analysis. 18 Agenda Item 8B This information and work is a direct request of the USDOT during its vetting of the project’s financial plan and investment grade traffic and revenue study. Anticipated Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Services Based on this recent work with Fitch and the USDOT, staff anticipates the need for continued Stantec services to support the project financing effort through financial close expected in June 2013. Therefore, staff proposes to augment the Stantec contract in anticipation of services needed to ensure no delay to our financing schedule should staff request these services from Stantec. The primary services anticipated include participation in the upcoming rating agency presentations, sensitivity analysis requested by rating agencies, updating the investment grade traffic and revenue study, and ongoing coordination. Attachment 1 provides further detail of anticipated future tasks and assumptions. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amoun t: $205,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper and 2009 Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 65520 00009 0000 262 31 65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 02/12/13 Attachment: Scope/Fee 19 20 21 RCTC SR-91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade Study Stantec - Extra Work Request, Post-Contract Services Hours Tasks Nielsten Abendschein Hughitt Mar Zamanski Connelly Drenkard Fee Rate: $344.25 $234.25 $216.32 $149.42 $106.77 $101.65 $96.54 Task 2.1 Preparation of Presentation Materials 48 8 8 5,260$ Task 2.2 Attend Meeting (assume 2)16 16 9,256$ Task 2.1 Additional Model Runs 41640 40 18,049$ Task 2.2 Traffic and Revenue Forecast 20 40 80 28,209$ Task 2.3 Coordination Calls/Meetings 416 5,125$ Task 3.1 Updated Data Collection/Summary 416 40 8018,825$ Task 3.2 Updated Land Use 12 12 6,942$ Task 3.1 Updated Model Runs 4 8 24 24 11,005$ Task 3.2 Updated Traffic and Revenue Forecast 12 40 40 19,478$ Task 3.3 Updated Traffic and Revenue Report 440 20 13,735$ Task 4.1 Toll Policy Coordination 840 20 15,112$ Task 4.2 Design Team Coordination 840 20 15,112$ Task 4.3 Meetings/Presentations 440 10,747$ Task 1 Total 20 24 0 8 0 8 0 14,516$ Task 2 Total 28 72 40 80 40 0 0 51,382$ Task 3 Total 36 116 24 100 24 0 80 69,985$ Task 4 Total 20 120 0 40 0 0 0 40,972$ TOTAL 104 332 64 228 64 8 80 176,855$ Expenses 10,000$ 186,855$ Airfare 4 x 1,350$ 5,400$ Hotel 8 x 200$ 1,600$ Rental Car 4 x 100$ 400$ Meals 4 x 100$ 400$ Train to DC 4 x 300$ 1,200$ Other 4 x 250$ 1,000$ 10,000$ Task 1: Rating Agency Meetings 1/25/2013 Task 2: Rating Agency Sensitivity Analyses Task 4: Ongoing Coordination Efforts Task 3: Potential Study "Refresh" 22 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 8C BLANK Agenda Item 8C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Technical Advisory Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Surface Transportation Program 2013 Call for Rehabilitation Projects BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the release of the 2013 Surface Transportation Program Call for Rehabilitation Projects (2013 STP Call for Rehabilitation Projects) in the amount of $12.5 million in federal STP funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The federal transportation act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), provides additional funding that the Commission is responsible for allocating based on established selection criteria. Due to the need to fund road repair work, the Commission set aside federal STP funds in the past specifically for rehabilitation, reconstruction, restoration, and preventative maintenance work. Staff recommends setting aside 20 percent of its estimated annual apportionment of STP funds over three years for rehabilitation type work, which results in $12.5 million available for the 2013 STP Call for Rehabilitation Projects. Although the Federal Highway Administration has not developed specific guidance for the programs and Caltrans and the state have not determined the funding distributions, the funding is available for project obligations and staff believes the funding amounts will not change significantly, if at all, from the current estimates provided by Caltrans. Rehabilitation projects are generally easier to process through Caltrans Local Assistance and can be quickly amended in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The remaining 80 percent of STP funds will be brought forward to the Commission for consideration of a future call for projects that will primarily be for capacity enhancement projects. 23 Agenda Item 8C Call for Projects General Requirements • STP funds will be programmed for the construction phase. • Local agencies must submit priority projects based on local agency evaluations. • Local agencies must certify funding match. • Federal rules require STP funded projects to be matched at a minimum of 11.47 percent. Eligible Projects: • Rehabilitation; • Restoration; • Reconstruction; and • Preventative Maintenance (must have pavement management system in place). Ineligible projects: Projects that add capacity or increase the number of lanes Target Allocation Amounts The last STP Rehabilitation Call for Projects was approved by the Commission in 2005. Staff is using the same format and criteria for the 2013 STP Call for Rehabilitation Projects due to the nature of the projects and relative ease in approving and programming funds. This planned 2013 STP Call for Rehabilitation Projects was discussed with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the TAC supports staff in moving forward with the 2013 STP Call for Rehabilitation Projects based on the success of the prior format for establishing target allocation amounts. The target allocation amounts available for each local agency were determined by using a combination of Federal Functional Classification System lane miles (provided by Caltrans) and population. Eligibility for federal funding requires that projects are on arterials that are identified on the Federal Functional Classification System. The population figures are from the 2010 Census. The population and lane miles are weighted 50/50. For agencies that incorporated after 2010, staff referred to State Department of Finance population data. The target allocation amounts for each agency are attached. Staff is working with Caltrans and the county of Riverside to obtain Federal Functional Classification System lane miles for the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley in order to determine the target allocation amounts for these cities. For some of the smaller cities, the target allocation amounts may not be sufficient to fund a project. In this case, the city would need to provide its own local funds to fully fund the project. 24 Agenda Item 8C The TAC and staff recommend that the Commission approve the 2013 STP Call for Rehabilitation Projects. The schedule is proposed as follows: 2013 STP Call for Rehabilitation Projects Timeline Date Commission Releases STP Call for Rehabilitation Projects Project Applications Due to RCTC by 5:00 p.m. Projects Reviewed/Evaluated Technical Advisory Committee Review/Recommendations Recommendations to Budget and Implementation Committee Recommendations to Commission March 13, 2013 April 1, 2013 April 2-10, 2013 April 15, 2013 April 22, 2013 May 8, 2013 There is no financial impact to the Commission, as federal STP funds are administered by Caltrans and do not flow directly through the Commission. Attachment: STP Target Allocation Amounts 25 BLANK Banning 164,758$ Beaumont 199,266$ Blythe 135,880$ Calimesa 49,307$ Canyon Lake 33,564$ Cathedral City 305,017$ Coachella 194,463$ Corona 753,847$ Desert Hot Springs 165,217$ Eastvale Hemet 401,521$ Indian Wells 38,680$ Indio 432,332$ Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore 259,233$ La Quinta 226,003$ Menifee 292,784$ Moreno Valley 982,055$ Murrieta 536,912$ Norco 160,920$ Palm Desert 303,900$ Palm Springs 358,795$ Perris 283,161$ Rancho Mirage 147,011$ Riverside 1,640,684$ San Jacinto 262,441$ Temecula 585,317$ Wildomar 122,914$ Unincorporated 3,054,130$ County Total 12,090,112$ LOCAL AGENCIES STP Allocation (50% Ln Mi/ 50% Pop) STP REHABILITATION CALL FOR PROJECTS - FUNDING DISTRIBUTION (DRAFT) 26 AGENDA ITEM 8D Agenda Item 8D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee William Von Klug, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Acquisition and Surplus of Real Property Located at Van Buren and Indiana in the City of Riverside WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the purchase and acquisition of real property, APN 234-250-013 (Parcel 2) for the amount of $29,000 and APN 234-250-030 (Parcel 1) for the amount of $148,325 from the city of Riverside (Riverside), for a total cost of $177,325; 2) Declare as surplus the real property purchased and acquired from the city (APN 234-250-013 and 234-250-030); and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus property for sale to the public. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In September 2009, the Commission approved the declaration of surplus property located at Van Buren Boulevard and Indiana Avenue in the city of Riverside. Public agencies were notified pursuant to Government Code 54220 et.seq that the property was available, and, when no responses were received, it was then advertised to the public for several months. At the same time, Riverside commenced construction of the Van Buren Boulevard overcrossing project. This project necessitated the acquisition of a portion of the Commission’s property (Parcel 1) in order to provide access on a short-term basis to an adjacent private property (Parcel 2). Parcel 2 is surrounded by the Commission-owned property that had been declared surplus. The agreement with Riverside provided the Commission would be paid $148,325 for Parcel 1; when the access was no longer needed, the Commission would buy Parcel 1 back for the same price of $148,325. 27 Agenda Item 8D The project also limited access to the Commission’s surplus property. Because of these restrictions, the project, and the lack of interest in purchasing the property, staff chose to stop advertising until the property could become more marketable. Riverside acquired Parcel 2 and completed its project; therefore, it no longer needs Parcel 2 and would like to sell it to the Commission. There is also a former canal that bisects the Commission’s property; since the ownership is unclear, Riverside will quitclaim any interest to the Commission. There are no other possible buyers for the parcels, as both parcels are landlocked and surrounded by Commission- owned property. Purchasing Riverside’s property interest in Parcels 1 and 2 would give the Commission one large viable site at Van Buren Boulevard and Indiana Avenue that would be more attractive and more valuable in the current real estate market. Riverside’s appraised value and the proposed purchase price for Parcel 2, is $29,000 or $6.00 per square foot, which staff considers a fair and reasonable purchase price considering the size, location, zoning, and lack of access. The property the Commission is required to buy back, Parcel 1, for the amount of $148,325, brings the total value of this transaction to $177,325. Therefore, staff requests approval to acquire Parcels 1 and 2 from Riverside at a cost of $177,325. With the acquisition of Parcels 1 and 2, staff requests that the Commission declare these parcels as surplus property and authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus property for sale to the public. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amount: $177,325 Source of Funds: 1989 Measure A Western County Rail Capital Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: P003800 81401 00000 0000 221 33 81401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 02/19/13 Attachment: A Map Depicting the Property to be Declared as Surplus 28 ) \ Epic Land Solutions, Inc. , This map-creiiM Ulint hiNII dill! ..._II h..,. ol pnldu:tion. Epic U11411Sc*6Mw ~ ·-,.....,...., lor hiiCQAC)' ollliN ~ inloriMiioft. Tl'lii!Mp il inleMed 1or du ~.,....Mid...., nat-a hltaillor ., ~ 8diDft., be wed lbr engineftlg ~ ..... Property to be ....... Declared as Surplus 0 100 200 Feet Riverside, California RCTC City (Parcel #1) ~ \ \ e -117.442681,33.913092 NAD 1983 StatePiane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum : North American 1983 Date: 2125/2013 29 AGENDA ITEM 8E Agenda Item 8E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee William Von Klug, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County Transportation Commission Right of Way Manual Related to Relocation Assistance Appeals BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to Section 7-3 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Right of Way Manual. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is being asked to amend Section 7-3 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Right of Way Manual to more accurately and comprehensively reflect the process an aggrieved person or business should follow in the event of an adverse relocation assistance determination. The amended Section 7-3 also provides more clarity to aggrieved persons and business as to the timing of their appeals and as to the duties and obligations of the Commission with respect to those appeals. Both state and federal law require that if an individual or a business is displaced as a result of a public project, the displacing agency must provide relocation assistance to that individual or business. Once a person or business is deemed to be eligible for relocation assistance, they are provided with a notice of their eligibility. In the event an individual or business is deemed ineligible for relocation assistance, or their eligibility is less than or different than what they expect, or the amount of a relocation payment is less than they believe is reasonable and necessary, the aggrieved person or business has a right to file an appeal with the agency. Currently, the Commission has in place an appeals process outlined in Section 7-3 of its Riverside County Transportation Commission Right of Way Manual. Staff and legal counsel’s review, however, indicates the process could be defined more clearly. Accordingly, Section 7-3, has been amended to provide greater clarity as to the steps an aggrieved individual or business must take to perfect an appeal, the 30 Agenda Item 8E responsibilities and duties of the Commission in responding to such appeals, and the timeline of the process. Specifically, unlike the current version of Section 7-3, the amended Section 7-3 requires staff take certain action within a specified time period, materials be made available to the party appealing, and to the greatest extent feasible, the Commission shall bear the cost of appeal. The amended Section 7-3 also outlines the process by which an appeals officer(s) is to be selected. Attachment: Section 7-3 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Right of Way Manual 31 17336.02100\7673307.7 CHAPTER VII RELOCATION ASSISTANCE Section 7-3 Appeals 7-3.1 General (49 CFR 24.10(a)) "The Agency shall promptly review appeals in accordance with the requirements of applicable law and this part." RCTC staff will review all appeals no later than 60 days after written notice of appeal is received. All Notices of Appeal shall be addressed as follows: Riverside County Transportation Commission Attention: Right of Way Manager 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, California 92502 7-3.2 Appealable Actions (49 CFR 24.10(b)) “An aggrieved person may file a written appeal with the Agency in any case in which the person believes that the Agency has failed to properly consider the person's application for assistance under this part. Such assistance may include, but is not limited to, the person's eligibility for, or the amount of, a payment required under Section 24.106 or Section 24.107, or a relocation payment required under this part. The Agency shall consider a written appeal regardless of form." RCTC staff shall consider all relocation assistance appeals on their merit, unless a claim is abandoned, either formally, or informally. 7-3.3 Time Limit (49 CFR 24.10(c)) "The Agency may set a reasonable time limit for a person to file an appeal. The time limit for filing an appeal shall not be less than 60 days after the person receives written notification of the Agency's determination on the person's claim." 17336.02100\7673307.7 If a claimant was not required to relocate, or was determined not be eligible for relocation benefits, the appeal must be filed within sixty (60) days of receiving notification of RCTC’s initial determination of ineligibility. If a claimant disagrees with the amount or type of eligibility determination, the appeal must be filed within sixty (60) days of receiving notification of that determination. RCTC may extend the time period for anyone to appeal, upon showing of good cause as determined at RCTC’s sole discretion. 7-3.4 Right to Representation (49 CFR 24.10(d)) "A person has a right to be represented by legal counsel or other representative in connection with his or her appeal, but solely at the person's own expense." 7-3.5 Review of Files (49 CFR 24.10(e)) "The Agency shall permit a person to inspect and copy all materials pertinent to his or her appeal, except materials which are classified as confidential by the Agency. The agency may, however, impose reasonable conditions on the person's right to inspect, consistent with applicable laws." RCTC will make available for review its relocation file, at RCTC offices, as it pertains to the appellant upon request by the appellant. A request to review the file shall be made in writing and must be made at the time the appeal is initiated pursuant to section 7-3.1. RCTC may set a reasonable time limit for appellant to review the file. RCTC may charge reasonable fees for any copied material in accordance with RCTC policy. Any materials that are protected from disclosure pursuant to any legal privilege or under the California Public Records Act shall not be made available. These materials are hereby classified confidential by RCTC. 7-3.6 Scope of Review (49 CFR 24.10(f)) "In deciding an appeal, the Agency shall consider all pertinent justification and other material submitted by the person, and all other available information that is needed to ensure a fair and full review of the appeal." All materials that the applicant wishes to have considered at the appeals hearing (see section 7-3.8) must be submitted no later than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing to allow the appeals panel sufficient time to consider such materials. 7-3.7 Agency Official — RCTC Executive Director (49 CFR 24.10(h)) 17336.02100\7673307.7 "The Agency official conducting the review of the appeal shall be either the head of the Agency or designee(s). However, the official shall not have been directly involved in the action appealed." 7-3.8 Appeal Process The Right of Way Manager or his or her designee (“ROW Manager”) shall respond to the appellant or the appellant’s representative in writing, no later than 14 days after receipt of Notification pursuant to section 7-3.1. If the ROW Manager is unable to resolve the disputed determination to the appellant’s satisfaction, the ROW Manager shall set a hearing for the appeal no later than 46 days from the date of the initial Notice. The hearing shall occur before an Appeal Board, which shall be comprised of one or more persons, at the discretion of the Executive Director or his or her designee. The following persons may not be on the Appeals Board 1.) Any individual who is employed by a firm that is contracted with RCTC on any active or pending Right of Way Project. 2.) Any person that has a contract or is a subcontractor with an entity that has a contract with RCTC on any active or pending Right of Way Project. 3.) Any individual who is holding an elected public office within RCTC’s jurisdiction. 4.) Any person directly involved in the determination being appealed. The appeal hearing shall be recorded, either through use of a court reporter or videographer, or both at RCTC’s election and cost. The appellant shall be entitled to obtain a copy of the transcript and/or video at RCTC’s expense. RCTC shall also pay for the cost of a copy and/or video to be provided to the appeals board should the matter be taken under submission. The appeal hearing shall be held at the RCTC offices to the greatest extent practicable, unless the ROW Manager and the appellant agree otherwise. The appeal hearing shall continue day to day until all evidence has been presented and all necessary testimony has been given. If the appellant is represented by counsel, RCTC shall have the right to be represented by counsel. 17336.02100\7673307.7 7-3.9 Determination and Notification After Appeal (49 CFR 24.10(g)) "Promptly after receipt of all information submitted by a person in support of an appeal, the Agency shall make a written determination on the appeal, including an explanation of the basis on which the decision was made, and furnish the person a copy. If the full relief requested is not granted, the Agency shall advise the person of his or her right to seek judicial review." RCTC shall issue a written determination of its final decision no later than 30 days after the conclusion of the appeals hearing. If the appellant is dissatisfied with the determination, the appellant may seek judicial review of the determination within the time limits prescribed by law. 7-3.10 Additional Rights - Title 25, California Code of Regulations Ch.6, Art 1 Section 6000 et seq., Section 6.158 (a) "General. The public entity shall consider the request for review and shall decide whether a modification of its initial determination is necessary. This review shall be conducted by the head of the public entity or an authorized, impartial designee. (The designee may be a committee). A designee shall have the authority to revise the initial determination or the determination of a previous oral presentation. The public entity shall consider every aggrieved person's complaint regardless of form, and shall, if necessary provide assistance to the claimant in preparing the written claim. When a claimant seeks review, the public entity shall inform him that he has the right to be represented by an attorney, to present his case by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of facts, and to seek judicial review once he has exhausted administrative appeal." The appellant has a right to representation by legal counsel or other counsel at his expense at any and all stages of the proceedings. The appellant also has the right to present his case by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, rebuttal evidence must be submitted at the time of the hearing or within 7 calendar days of the date of the hearing, to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of facts, and to seek judicial review once he has exhausted administrative appeal AGENDA ITEM 8F BLANK Agenda Item 8F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Commission’s Rail Program Short Range Transit Plans WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to amend the Commission’s Commuter Rail Program’s FY 2004/05, FY 2009/10, FY 2010/11, and FY 2011/12 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) to reflect the reallocation of Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds of $12,861 from the rail car procurement, $730,580 from the La Sierra Station parking lot expansion project, and $640,686 from the station plan plus interest accrued since January 1, 2013, to the Perris Valley Line closed circuit television (CCTV) and operations control center projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SRTPs include plans for the Commission’s Regional Commuter Rail Program and provide detailed information about existing services and facilities, financial forecasts and plans, as well as planned and proposed improvements to be implemented. The Commission oversees transit service in Riverside County primarily through the approval of SRTPs that detail the operating and capital costs planned for transit services. Each operator adopts such a plan and then provides data to the Commission on performance. As SRTPs are based upon estimates of future projects, it is necessary to subsequently amend these documents upon completion or changes to specified projects and circumstances. The Rail Program is thus requesting amendments to its FY 2004/05, FY 2009/10, FY 2010/11, and FY 2011/12 Commuter Rail SRTPs in order to: • Cleanup unused funds through reallocation; and • Use state grant funds to preserve local funds. 37 Agenda Item 8F FY 2004/05, FY 2009/10, FY 2010/11, and FY 2011/12 SRTP Proposed Amendments At its April 13, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved an expanded base order of four train cars or one locomotive and two train cars for an additional amount of $7,875,000 for the 91 Line/IEOC Line/Perris Valley Line for delivery within three years. On September 14, 2011, the Commission approved substitution of the local transportation fund portion of the funding with PTMISEA unused funds of $84,524 from the La Sierra Station parking lot expansion project, anticipated PTMISEA funds of $200,000 from the operations control center project, and anticipated PTMISEA funds of $1,290,476 from the station plan. The final rail car procurement amounted to less than estimated. A residual principal and accumulated earned interest balance of $12,861 remains as of January 1, 2013. Staff recommends an SRTP amendment to reallocate this balance and all subsequently earned interest to the FY 2011/12 Perris Valley Line CCTV and FY 2010/11 operations control center projects. The approved FY 2009/10 SRTP included allocations of $870,637 in PTMISEA funds to the La Sierra Station parking lot expansion project and $684,000 in PTMISEA funds to the station plan. On September 14, 2011, the Commission approved reallocation of remaining balances of these funds for use on the FY 2011/12 Perris Valley Line CCTV and FY 2010/11 operations control center projects. Residual funds remained within the applicable FY 2009/10 projects to cover potential outstanding invoices. These projects are now closed; however, residual principal and earned interest remain allocated to these closed projects. A residual principal and earned interest balance of $730,580 remains in the La Sierra Station parking lot expansion project as of January 1, 2013. A residual principal and interest balance of $640,686 remains in the station plan as of January 1, 2013. Staff recommends rescinding the applicable SRTP amendment of September 14, 2011, and a new SRTP amendment to reallocate the total balance of $1,371,266 and all subsequently accrued interest to the FY 2011/12 Perris Valley Line CCTV and FY 2010/11 operations control center projects. No budget adjustments are necessary, as the project expenditures will be incurred subsequent to FY 2012/13. Funding Year From To Amount Prop 1B FY2004/05 Rail Car Procurement Perris Valley Line CCTV & Operations Control Center $12,861+ Prop 1B FY2009/10 La Sierra Parking Expansion $730,580+ Prop 1B FY2009/10 Station Rehabilitation Plan $640,686+ 38 Agenda Item 8F Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Years: FY 2013/14+ Amount: $1,384,127+ Source of Funds: Proposition 1B Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 004018 XXXXX 265 33 XXXXX Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 02/19/13 39 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 8G Agenda Item 8G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Josefina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Pacific Municipal Consultants for Triennial Performance Audit Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 13-62-072-00 to Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) for triennial performance audit services for an initial term through December 31, 2013, covering the triennial performance audits for FY 2009/10 – FY 2011/12 with an option for a second term through December 31, 2016, covering FY 2012/13 – FY 2014/15, for a total contract amount not to exceed $207,740; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99246, included in the Transportation Development Act (TDA), requires Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) contract for triennial performance audits of their activities and the activities of the transit operators to which they allocate TDA funds. This audit is conducted every three years, and the Commission must send a certificate of completion to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in order for the Commission to receive and allocate TDA funds for Riverside County. The audits evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of the Commission and the seven public operators: cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency. These initial performance audits will cover fiscal years ending June 30, 2010 through June 30, 2012 and must be conducted in compliance with relevant sections of the TDA. 40 Agenda Item 8G Procurement Process The request for proposals (RFP) was released by Commission staff and advertised on December 14, 2012. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the January 10, 2013, deadline. Two firms, PMC and Bazilio Cobb Associates (BCA), submitted proposals prior to the January 24, 2013, submittal deadline. Each of the firms submitted responsive and responsible proposals. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the two firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission and Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) staff. Based on the evaluation committee’s assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee recommends award of this contract to PMC, as that firm earned the highest total evaluation score under the evaluation criteria of the RFP. The recommended firm labor rates were competitively established and considered fair and reasonable, based upon adequate price competition under the above referenced procurement process and staff evaluation of historical costs paid by the Commission for the same or similar services. Staff is confident the recommended firm will provide the Commission with quality service at the best possible price. Staff recommends the approval of a contract in the amount of $97,193 with PMC to conduct the state-mandated triennial performance audits covering fiscal years FY 2009/10 – FY 2011/12 with an option to conduct a second performance audit term for years covering FY 2012/13 – FY 2014/15 for the amount of $110,547. Since the audits are required by state TDA law, the Commission will use TDA funds to pay for the work. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2012/13 FY2013/14 Amount: $97,193 $110,547 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 106 62 65401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 02/19/13 Attachment: Standard Professional Services Agreement 41 17336.00000\7415357.2 Agreement No. 13-62-072-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT SERVICES WITH PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 201_, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Co- mmission") and PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS ("Consultant"). 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing performance audit services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain consulting services for the Transit Triennial Performance Audit Project ("Project") as set forth herein. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first specified above to December 31, 2016, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to 42 17336.00000\7415357.2 2 perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: __________________________________. 3.7 Commission’s Representative. Commission hereby designates [___INSERT NAME OR TITLE___], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission’s Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant’s Representative. Consultant hereby designates [___INSERT NAME OR TITLE___], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant’s Representative"). Consultant’s Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant’s Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all 43 17336.00000\7415357.2 3 means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant’s errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the 44 17336.00000\7415357.2 4 performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. [___INCLUDE ONLY IF APPLICABLE - DELETE OTHERWISE___] Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub- consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 [___INCREASE IF NECESSARY - OTHERWISE LEAVE AS IS AND DELETE THIS NOTE___] per claim. 3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. 45 17336.00000\7415357.2 5 (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and, (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self-insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 46 17336.00000\7415357.2 6 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed [___INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT___] ($[___INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT___]) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director (“Total Compensation”). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make 47 17336.00000\7415357.2 7 transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: COMMISSION: ______________________ Riverside County ______________________ Transportation Commission ______________________ 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor _____________________ Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: ________________ Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 48 17336.00000\7415357.2 8 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub-license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission’s sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media (“Intellectual Property”) prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above-referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. 49 17336.00000\7415357.2 9 All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub-license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission in order to allow the Commission to pursue legal remedies designed to limit any confidential information required to be disclosed or to assure the confidential treatment of the information following disclosure. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.18.4 Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 50 17336.00000\7415357.2 10 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant’s own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant’s obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 51 17336.00000\7415357.2 11 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee’s regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 52 17336.00000\7415357.2 12 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub-consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub-consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 53 17336.00000\7415357.2 13 3.33 Eight-Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight-Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub- consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. 3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, 54 17336.00000\7415357.2 14 terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties’ understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 55 17336.00000\7415357.2 15 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT SERVICES WITH PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: __________________________ By: ____________________________ Karen Spiegel Signature Chair ___________________________ Name ____________________________ Title Approved as to Form: Attest: By: ____________________________ By: ________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Its: Secretary 56 BLANK 17336.00000\7415357.2 A-1 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES [___INSERT___] 57 BLANK 17336.00000\7415357.2 B-1 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [___INSERT___] 58 BLANK 17336.00000\7415357.2 C-1 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION [___INSERT___] 59 AGENDA ITEM 9 Agenda Item 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2013/14 Budget BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2013/14 Budget. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The initial step in the budget process is to develop policy goals and objectives for the next fiscal year that are consistent with the Commission’s overall strategic direction. Most importantly, the adoption of the Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the annual fiscal year budget provides an opportunity to match the Commission’s spending priorities in a manner that implements the promises made to the citizens of the county of Riverside in both Measure A Expenditure Plans and that fulfills other Commission responsibilities. The Commission’s seven long-term policy goals are: • Promote mobility; • Mitigate and address the impact of goods movement; • Encourage economic development; • Ensure improved system efficiencies; • Foster environmental stewardship; • Support transportation choices through Intermodalism and accessibility; and • Prioritize public and agency communications. The Commission’s Financial and Administrative Policies are also included in the Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2013/14 Budget. Attachment: Proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for FY 2013/14 Budget 60 Commission Policy Goals and Objectives In addition to financial and administration policies, the Commission has seven long-term policy goals: promote mobility, mitigate and address the impact of goods movement, encourage economic development, ensure improved system efficiencies, foster environmental stewardship, support transportation choices through intermodalism and accessibility, and prioritize public and agency communications. For each of these policy goals, the objectives and initiatives that were considered in the framework of the work plan for the FY 2013/14 budget are identified below. While Riverside County shows modest signs of economic recovery, the Commission remains cautious about revenue availability. The need for better transportation remains a top public priority, and the Commission is poised to address this challenge via the seven policy goals. In moving forward with an aggressive program of projects and services, the Commission will face fluctuating Measure A, TUMF, and TDA revenues and uncertainty regarding the availability of federal and state transportation revenues. Due to the long-term nature of many of the Commission’s programs, many of the policy goals’ objectives and initiatives are ongoing from year to year. Promote Mobility The Commission, in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies, will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the County and region. • Continue to aggressively pursue completion of the environmental, design, and construction processes on key components of the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan, which includes the SR-91, I-15, and I-215 corridor improvement projects. • Enhance corridor mobility and traveler choice by: o Continuing property acquisition and commencing construction on the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project through Corona, which includes the extension of tolled express lanes (91 Express Lanes) into Riverside County; and o Continuing to develop a tolled express lane system on I-15 between SR-60 and Cajalco Road. • Work closely with partners in the Coachella Valley, including CVAG and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), to ensure the implementation of Measure A funding priorities. • Complete projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A and determine use(s) for any unexpended revenues. • Continue the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance for the Mid County Parkway and SR- 79 realignment projects. • Continue to work with state and federal agencies to fund and construct projects programmed in the STIP, Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), Proposition 1B bond programs, and Measure A program as well as other high priority regional projects. • Maximize obtaining all available transportation funds and strategically program funds to meet funding deadlines and to prevent the lapse and loss of funds. • Leverage the effective application and use of Measure A Western County regional arterial and other state and federal funds to deliver eligible regional arterial projects. • Work closely with local jurisdictions to administer the TUMF Regional Arterial Program and facilitate the delivery of eligible arterial improvements in Western County. • Actively participate in the SR-91 Advisory Committee to facilitate near and long-term improvements to SR-91, enhance intercounty public transit options, and foster mobility improvements between the two counties. • Advocate streamlining efforts at the state and federal levels that will reduce costs, time, and delays currently associated with project delivery including, but not limited to, timely project reviews and approvals. • Continue to coordinate and provide public access to commuter information via the IE511 system and focus commuter assistance and IE511 outreach efforts under one brand. • Continue cooperation with the FTA regarding the Small Starts process to support the initiation of the Perris Valley Line commuter rail service in 2015. 61 • Continue to work with the public transit operators to control costs and increase system efficiencies in order to accommodate fluctuating revenues from local, state and federal sources. • Continue to develop transit service to further promote seamless intracity, intercity, and regional transit connectivity for County residents. Mitigate and Address the Impact of Goods Movement The Commission will work with federal, state, and local governments to facilitate the movement of goods and services to, within, and through the County, recognizing the vital role goods movement mobility plays in the economic health of the County, the State, and the nation. • Seek funding and local agency concurrence to implement the Commission’s approved, high-priority railroad grade separation list to mitigate the impact of increased goods movement demands on the transportation system. • Encourage Congress to create a federal freight trust fund, or similar program with a dedicated and firewalled revenue structure, in order to treat the nation’s multimodal national goods movement network as a system rather than individual projects. • Remain committed to a regional approach regarding goods movement issues in order to maximize funding from state and federal sources to goods movement needs in Southern California. • Continue working with the Ports and regional transportation commissions to develop a funding mechanism for needed projects and mitigation on a regional basis. Encourage Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement, and, where feasible and practical, will pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development. • Commit to seek opportunities related to transportation projects that will create jobs and improve the economic base in the County. • Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges that are in proximity to regional economic centers and developments. • Support local projects, consistent with countywide transportation goals, which enhance business development, local employment, and area tourism. Ensure Improved System Efficiencies The Commission will select projects and allocate funds in a manner that will improve safety and reduce congested traffic corridors. • Advocate the development and use of advanced technologies for transportation applications that are affordable and practical. • In partnership with SANBAG, implement enhancements to the IE511 mobile application for improved deployment of real-time traffic information, real-time bus and rail transit trip planning information, and rideshare information available to commuters for the purpose of trip planning and reducing congestion. • Assure the effectiveness of transit planning through coordination with the County’s eight transit operators, Citizens’ Advisory Committee, and annual SRTP process with a goal toward promoting program productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. • Provide innovative commuter rideshare programs to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and coordinate with other regional rideshare service providers to address intercounty commute trips. • Work with local jurisdictions, Caltrans, and the CHP to continue efficient delivery of a comprehensive motorist aid system which includes an IE511 traveler information service, a call box program, and a FSP program, including temporary services in freeway construction zones. • Leverage resources to incorporate park and ride facilities and additional connecting bus service at Metrolink stations that may have available capacity. • Continue working with Caltrans to monitor traffic conditions for the purpose of focusing transportation 62 funds on congested corridors and system deficiencies. • Work with Caltrans and regional agencies in developing resources for preservation and maintenance of the highways and regional arterials. • Support the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide non-motorized transportation alternatives. Foster Environmental Stewardship The Commission will achieve its mobility goals while promoting environmental stewardship and protecting the area’s natural resources and quality of life. • Continue working with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Caltrans, and state/federal resource agencies to implement the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). • Work with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), sub-regional agencies, and local jurisdictions to implement the current RTP and sustainable communities strategy that meets regional air quality goals, conformity guidelines, and SB375 green house reduction targets for the SCAG region. • Support a variety of outreach channels and educational programs that promote the benefits of ridesharing, public and specialized transit, rail, and availability of commuter resources for the purposes of reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. • Facilitate private/public use of clean fuels technology. • Continue to develop sustainable and green commuter rail stations and provide upgrades and rehabilitation projects to reduce the environmental impact of the existing stations. Support Transportation Choices through Intermodalism and Accessibility County residents will be served, where economically feasible, through the development of transportation alternatives and travel options that consider the needs of a wide range of citizens. • Work with transit providers and local social service agencies to provide specialized transit service to meet a broad spectrum of socio-economic transit needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, and low income residents. • Leverage commuter and motorist assistance outreach channels in order to increase the awareness and use of alternative commuting modes. • Implement the Commission’s commuter rail SRTP and SCRRA’s plan for commuter rail services with an emphasis on the Perris Valley Line, an extension from Riverside to Perris via Moreno Valley. • Continue to develop an implementation plan for passenger rail services to the Pass Area and the Coachella Valley. • Continue to pursue the goals and objectives as outlined in the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) for Riverside County related to a unified, comprehensive but flexible strategy for transportation service delivery to address transportation gaps and/or barriers focusing on unmet transportation needs of elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, and individuals of limited income. • Enhance security, surveillance, and emergency response capabilities of County transit facilities and roadway infrastructure through proactive planning, interagency coordination, and investment. Prioritize Public and Agency Communications The Commission will provide timely, informative, and accurate information to encourage informed public and agency participation in the Commission’s decision-making processes. • Promote a close working relationship with news and civic entities to increase interest and understanding of transportation and related issues. • Enhance the provision of public information through various forms of communication (e.g., website, annual report, monthly newsletter, television, Speakers Bureau, print media, radio, etc.). 63 • Maintain an ongoing effort of informing Riverside County’s Congressional and State Legislative delegations regarding County transportation issues. • Develop an effective long-range legislative strategy regarding federal transportation bill funding and federal agency practices to ensure that the federal government participates as a full partner in funding Riverside County projects that are of national and regional significance. • Protect and enhance flexibility in the Commission’s use of state and federal transportation revenue in addressing regional priorities and needs. • Explore local options for sustainable funding in addressing long-term transportation and quality-of-life needs for Riverside County. • Advocate for sufficient funding for Riverside County transit and transportation projects from various federal and state revenue sources including, but not limited to, annual federal appropriations, economic recovery programs, STIP, and Proposition 1B bond programs. • Seek legislative flexibility for innovative financing and delivery methods. • Maintain ongoing efforts to educate commuters, businesses, and the public regarding the Commission’s toll planning efforts and specific project development efforts currently underway. Financial and Administration Policies Financial Planning Policies • Administrative costs, including salaries and benefits, shall be funded by allocations from Measure A, LTF, FSP, SAFE, and TUMF funds. • The Commission shall budget no more than one percent (1%) of Measure A sales tax revenues for administrative salaries and benefits. • Administrative program delivery costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent (4%) of Measure A sales tax revenues (inclusive of the one-percent salary limitation). The Commission shall budget 100% of the annual required contribution related to the postretirement health care benefits. • The Commission shall utilize unexpended 1989 Measure A funds only for projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A. Sales tax revenues from the 2009 Measure A shall be expended only for projects and programs included in the 2009 Measure A. • Amounts will be budgeted by fiscal year for multi-year projects, based on best available estimates, with the understanding that, to the extent actuals vary from those estimates and the project is ongoing, adjustments will be made on a continual basis. • The fiscal capital budget should be consistent with the strategic plan and deviations appropriately noted, explained, and justified. • A balanced budget shall be adopted annually with operating and capital expenditures and other financing uses equal to or less than identified revenues and other financing sources as well as available fund balances. Revenue Policies • Sales tax revenue projections will be revised semi-annually to ensure use of current and relevant data. Staff may adjust annual amounts during the budget preparation process to reflect the most current economic trends. • A strategic application of local funding sources will be used to maximize federal and state funding of projects. • Fiduciary responsibility regarding Western County TUMF revenues shall be exercised, and revenues will be allocated pursuant to Commission direction and the approved 2009 Measure A. • Adopted toll revenue policies will establish congestion pricing in order to maximize throughput on toll facilities. Such pricing will be adjusted quarterly by pre-defined formulas. 64 Debt Management Policies • Outstanding sales tax revenue bonds shall not exceed $975 million. • Toll revenue supported debt may be issued for specific highway projects and may comprise toll revenue bonds and federal loans. • The Commission will maintain 2.0x debt ratio coverage on all senior sales tax revenue debt and 1.3x debt ratio coverage on all senior toll revenue debt. • Debt issuance will be for major capital projects including engineering, right of way, and construction. Operating requirements, if any, must be paid from current ongoing revenues and may not be financed. • Costs of issuance, including the standard underwriter’s discount, will not exceed two percent (2%). • The Commission may enter into interest rate swaps to better manage assets and liabilities and take advantage of market conditions to lower overall costs and reduce interest rate risk. • While it is the intent of the Commission to establish a cash debt reserve for long term bond issuance, as necessary, surety bonds can be obtained when beneficial to the Commission. • All sales tax revenue debt must mature prior to the termination of 2009 Measure A on June 30, 2039. • All toll revenue supported debt must mature prior to the expiration of toll facility agreements. Expenditure Accountability Policies • Established priorities for planning and programming of capital projects will be reviewed annually with the Commission. • Actual expenditures will be compared to the budget on at least a quarterly basis, and significant deviations will be appropriately noted, explained, and justified. • Operations and maintenance agreements for toll operations will be implemented, and related costs will be compared to toll financing assumptions. Reserve Policies • The Commission will maintain program reserves in accordance with Measure A and TDA policies and guidelines. • The Commission will establish and maintain a transit operator’s reserve of ten percent (10%) for the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. Additionally, a ten percent (10%) reserve will be established and maintained for each of the Western County transit operators (public bus and commuter rail). • The Commission will establish and maintain reserves for toll operations, capital improvements, and debt service in accordance with toll supported debt agreements. Cash Management and Investment Policies • Where possible, the Commission will encourage receipt of funds by wire transfer to its accounts. • Balances in the bank operating account will be maintained at the amount necessary to meet monthly expenditures. • Construction and operating funds will be invested per the Commission’s established investment policy emphasizing in order of priority: 1) safety, 2) liquidity, and 3) yield. • Cash disbursements to local jurisdictions and vendors/consultants will be completed in an expeditious and timely manner. 65 Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting Policies • The Commission will maintain its financial software system in order to integrate project and toll operations accounting needs and improve accounting efficiency. • The Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR); separate financial reports for the Local Transportation Fund, State Transit Assistance Fund, and Proposition 1B Rehabilitation and Security Project Accounts; and State Controller’s Transportation Planning Agency Financial Transactions Report as well as Government Compensation in California Report. • An audit is to be conducted annually on the Commission’s accounting books and records. As long as the Commission has outstanding bonds, an independent accounting firm must conduct the audit. • The Commission is responsible for ensuring that audits of Measure A and TDA funding recipients are completed and reviewed for compliance and other matters in a timely manner. Human Resources Management Policies • While accommodating the assumption of toll operation responsibilities, Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation, which envisioned a small, but effective staff. • Contract staff and consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as possible to support programs or workloads, which do not appear to be of a permanent nature. Information Technology Management Policy • Significant effort will be made to maintain efficient and cost-effective technology infrastructure by continuously upgrading network equipment and software to ensure quality performance, productivity, and connectivity among staff, other agencies, toll operator, and the public. Network security will continue to be a top priority to maintain the integrity of the Commission’s network and information. Linking Commission Policy Goals and Departmental Goals and Objectives The following matrix (Table 19) illustrates the linkage of the Commission’s overall policy goals described in this section to the individual departmental goals and objectives included in Section 6. Table 19 – Relationship Between Commission and Departmental Goals Department Mobility Goods Movement System Efficiencies Environmental Stewardship Economic Development Intermodalism & Accessibility Communications Financial & Administration Management Services Executive Management X X X X X X Administration X X Legislative Affairs & Communications X X X X X Finance X X Regional Programs Planning and Programming X X X X X X X X Rail Maintenance and Operations X X X X X Public and Specialized Transit X X X X X Commuter Assistance X X X X X X Motorist Assistance X X X X Capital Project Development & Delivery X X X X X X X 66 Budget Policy Goals and Objectives Fiscal Year 2013/14 Budget Development Commission Policy Goals Department Goals and Objectives Budget Adoption Commission Policy Goals Policy GoalsMobility Goods Movement Economic Development System Efficiencies Environmental Stewardship Intermodalism & Accessibility Communications Mobility Projects & Programs •Complete environmental, design, and construction phases for 2009 Measure A projects •Enhance corridor mobility and traveler choice with tolled express lanes •Advocate streamlining efforts regarding project delivery, including CEQA reform •Continue cooperation with FTA on Perris Valley Line (PVL) •Work closely with partners in the Coachella Valley Funding •Work with other agencies to fund and construct projects, including regional arterials •Maximize available funding and prevent loss of funds Multimodal •Coordinate public access to commuter information and focus outreach efforts under one brand •Work with transit operators to manage operations with fluctuating revenues •Develop transit service vision for seamless connectivity Goods Movement Pursue funding and completion of priority grade separations Work with partners to encourage federal freight trust fund for system network Remain committed to regional approach on goods movement to maximize funding Work with agencies to develop funding mechanism for regional projects Economic Development Seek opportunities to create jobs and improve economic base Support local projects that enhance business, employment and tourism Support local agency interchange projects System Efficiencies •Advocate for advanced technologies for transportation applications •Implement enhancements to the IE511 system mobile AppTechnology •Provide innovative rideshare programs •Work with agencies to deliver comprehensive motorist aid system •Use resources to incorporate park and ride facilities and connecting bus services at Metrolink stations Multimodal Services •Assure effective transit planning through coordination with other agencies •Work with Caltrans to monitor traffic conditions •Develop resources with Caltrans and other agencies to preserve and maintain highways and arterials •Support implementation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide non- motorized transportation alternatives Other Environmental Stewardship Implementation •Work with local, state and federal agencies on MSHCP implementation •Work with agencies on RTP and SCS to meet air quality goals, conformity guidelines, and SB375 reduction targets “Green” •Facilitate use of clean fuels technology •Develop sustainable and green commuter rail stations Programs •Support programs that promote multimodal services to reduce trips and miles traveled •Play a larger role in supporting and planning active transportation projects Intermodalism & Accessibility Work with agencies to provide specialized transit services Leverage commuter and motorist assistance outreach to increase awareness of commuting modes Implement expansion of commuter rail system with PVL Advocate for additional passenger rail services in the Coachella Valley Pursue Coordinated Plan goals and objectives for comprehensive and flexible transportation services strategy Enhance security, surveillance and emergency response for transit facilities and infrastructure Communications •Promote working relationships with news and civic entities •Enhance public information delivery methods •Inform state and federal delegations Information •Protect and enhance flexibility in use of state and federal funds for regional needs •Explore options for sustainable long-term transportation and quality of life needs •Develop legislative strategies and advocate for sufficient federal and state funding •See legislative flexibility for innovative financing and delivery methods Funding and Legislation •Maintain outreach efforts for toll project planning and specific project development efforts •Keep the public informed of construction-related impactsOutreach Financial & Administrative Policies Accounting •Revenue •Expenditure Accountability •Reserves •Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting Finance •Cash and Investment Management •Debt Management •Financial Planning Administration •Human Resources Management •Information Technology Management Next Steps Final Budget June 12—Commission closes public hearing and adopts budget Draft Proposed Budget April 22—B&I review of executive summary May 8—Commission opens public hearing and review of executive summary Development of Budget Departmental budgets, including linkage to Commission policy goals Compilation and review of budgets AGENDA ITEM 10 Agenda Item 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: Status of State-Local Partnership Program – Formula Funds BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the status report on Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) allocations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its March, July, and September 2012 meetings, the Commission approved nine projects totaling $58,941,000 for SLPP formula funds. SLPP funding must be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on or by its June 2013 meeting. SLPP funded projects that remain unallocated after the June meeting will be reallocated by the CTC to other projects within the state. Projects that receive allocations by June must award a construction contract by December 31, 2013. Given these timelines staff monitored the projects to ensure the deadlines are met. To date, two projects have been allocated: Agency Project SLPP Funds CTC Allocation Date Indio Monroe Road $1,375,000 October 2012 Murrieta I-15/Los Alamos Bridge 2,500,000 January 2013 Subtotal: $3,875,000 The following projects are scheduled for allocations at the March and May CTC meetings: 67 Agenda Item 10 Agency Project SLPP Funds CTC Allocation Date Commission State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) $37,173,000 March 2013 Corona Foothill Parkway 7,000,000 March 2013 Indian Wells Hwy 111 1,550,000 March 2013 *La Quinta Hwy 111/Washington Street 287,000 May 2013 Palm Desert Monterey IC/Loop ramp 2,800,000 May 2013 *Indio Varner Road 2,253,000 May 2013 *Riverside County Fred Waring Drive 4,003,000 May 2013 Subtotal: $ 55,066,000 *Projects received additional $3,000-$4,000 each due to correction in available funding per CTC notification in January. Staff is working closely with local agencies and Caltrans to move forward with the respective allocation requests. Local agencies requesting funding allocations in March have submitted the requests. Allocation requests targeted for the May 2013 CTC meeting must complete all pre-construction phases and submit the allocation requests by March 11, 2013. There is no financial impact to the Commission. Projects are required to match the SLPP funds with transportation sales tax, or Measure A funds, on a 50-50 basis. While the Commission will match with Measure A Highway funds and receive the SLPP funds allocated for the SR-91 CIP, the other projects’ SLPP funds will not flow directly through the Commission. The cities of Corona and Murrieta have separate funding agreements in place with the Commission for Measure A Regional Arterial matching funds. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments has agreements with the respective local agencies in Eastern County regarding Measure A matching funds for its SLPP projects. 68 AGENDA ITEM 11 Agenda Item 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 13, 2013 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act Modernization STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive information on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) modernization efforts in Sacramento; 2) Ratify membership in the CEQA Working Group and endorse the Policy Principles for CEQA Modernization; and 3) Provide direction for further advocacy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CEQA was enacted 40 years ago. Since then, CEQA has provided an avenue for public and private projects to be thoroughly vetted for impacts to the environment, local communities, and historic and cultural resources. While the CEQA review process benefited the public by increasing transparency and public participation in decision-making, protecting key environmental and cultural assets, the CEQA review process also provided a tool for opponents of projects to slow or destroy projects all together for reasons unrelated to the environmental concerns CEQA was designed to address. It is not difficult to find projects in Riverside County and across California with positive benefits to communities that incurred significant delays and expenditures of taxpayer dollars due to the misuse of CEQA. Furthermore, since the time CEQA was enacted, federal, state, and local governments have placed upwards of 100 new laws on the books to achieve environmental goals. Unfortunately, while several of these laws may reference each other, in many cases these laws create duplicative and un-integrated processes. It is also true in some respects that CEQA provides for similar or even more stringent reviews and requirements than the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). This is why in recent years the Commission championed federal legislation that would allow states to substitute their own environmental laws if those states are equivalent or more rigorous than NEPA. Recent federal Agenda Item 11 transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), requires this idea to be studied prior to the enactment of the next transportation bill in Congress. Riverside County demonstrated national leadership on environmental protection in adopting the visionary Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) and chartering the largest-of-its-kind Western Riverside County Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). This effort proactively preserves critical species and their habitats from development and infrastructure expansion. The Commission committed $153 million to the effort. Local governments in Riverside County have successfully used this comprehensive environmental protection plan to create strong partnerships with state and federal resource agencies charged with maintaining environmental standards. The benefit to the Commission and other agencies across the county is streamlined reviews of environmental documents. The economic recession that California and the nation are emerging from placed an emphasis towards reforming bureaucracy and government process to achieve savings and economic stimulus through efficiency, rather than generating new revenues. MAP-21 provided historic first steps towards setting deadlines for agency approvals of infrastructure projects and imposing penalties for being late. The desire to boost the economy and be more resourceful stewards of public dollars manifested itself in California as political momentum for modernizing CEQA. In 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill designed to expedite CEQA review of a football stadium in the city of Industry. In 2011, the Legislature passed a broader law that allows the Governor to designate “leadership projects” that create jobs, boost the economy, and achieve other desirable public policy goals. Leadership projects receive the benefit of streamlined judicial proceedings if their CEQA documents are challenged in court. To date, the Governor used his authority to designate three leadership projects including Apple Inc’s new headquarters in Cupertino and a solar energy development project here in Riverside County. While these two bills can provide some relief from excessive CEQA litigation to a few special projects handpicked by the Governor and Legislature, these bills do not provide the underlying public policy needed to assist countless publicly-funded projects that are held hostage by groups that use CEQA to achieve ulterior ends other than what the law was intended to do. At the end of the 2012 legislative session, Senator Michael Rubio (D-Shafter) introduced a bill to reform CEQA. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), a coalition of more than 375 major employers in the Bay Area, rallied behind Senator Rubio’s effort. The involvement of this group is helpful and important in that it is comprised of many high-tech companies that are widely viewed as being Agenda Item 11 supportive of the environment while championing pro-business/employer policy. Senator Rubio’s bill was tabled as Senate President Pro-Tempore Darrell Steinberg pledged to put in the work to study the issue and place CEQA modernization as a forefront agenda item for the 2013 session. Since then, much has happened: • SVLG has grown its coalition and formed the CEQA Working Group, a collection of stakeholders pushing for modernization of CEQA. The working group is reaching out to potential supporters, providing information to the news media, and meeting with members of the Legislature; • Senator Rubio and Senator Steinberg embarked on a series of listening sessions across California to discuss approaches to updating CEQA; • Senator Rubio was appointed by Pro-Tem Steinberg to chair the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, widely perceived as a positive sign for achieving CEQA reforms in this session; • Governor Brown clearly stated in his State of the State Address that CEQA modernization was a priority, followed by several public statements that Governor Brown is serious about getting something done this year on CEQA; • Environmental groups and certain factions of organized labor formed their own coalition to fight against CEQA modernization; the coalition’s name is “CEQA Works”; • Senator Rubio resigned from the Legislature on February 22; • Pro-Tem Steinberg introduced SB 731 on February 22, a bill that states the Legislature’s intent to update CEQA statutes on a few select topics such as: o Providing greater certainty for “smart infill development” and expand the definition of infill development; o “Further streamline the law for renewable energy projects, advanced manufacturing projects, transit, bike, and pedestrian projects, and renewable transmission projects”; o Establishing thresholds of significance for noise, aesthetics, parking, and traffic; o Avoid duplicative review and further define what “new information” means; o Establish clearer procedures for trial courts; o Retaining parts of a CEQA document that are not in violation of CEQA while other parts may be corrected; and o Establish clear rules on “document dumps” and “late hits”; • Several other legislators introduced early versions of CEQA related bills on the February 22 bill deadline: Agenda Item 11 o AB 37 (Perea) o AB 253 (Levine) o AB 380 (Dickinson) o AB 417 (Frazier) o AB 515 (Dickinson) o AB 543 (Campos) o AB 617 (Evans) o AB 628 (Gorrell) o AB 756 (Melendez) o AB 823 (Eggman) o AB 930 (Hall) o AB 953 (Ammiano) o AB 1060 (Fox) o SB 167 (Gaines) o SB 359 (Corbett) o SB 436 (Jackson) o SB 525 (Galgiani) o SB 617 (Evans) o SB 633 (Pavley) o SB 731 (Steinberg) o SB 739 (Calderon) o SB 754 (Evans) o SB 787 (Berryhill) Several bills introduced in February such as those listed above are “spot” bills – legislation initiative with non-substantive changes to law, intended as a vehicle for substantive language later in the session. It is important to note several of these bills are intended to achieve goals counter to the Commission’s interests. Using the Commission’s adopted platform statement referenced below and the Policy Principles for CEQA Modernization included with this item, throughout the year staff will bring forward the bills listed above for the Commission to consider for support or opposition, once it becomes clear what each bill will ultimately accomplish. Additionally, staff seeks consent to offer legislative language Agenda Item 11 suggestions to Members of the Legislature whose positions on CEQA are consistent with the Commission’s 2013 State Legislative Platform, which states: “Support efforts to reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in such a manner that preserves key environmental protections and public engagement while reducing waste of taxpayer dollars and delays to environmentally beneficial public projects due to protracted litigation.” At its Commission Workshop in La Quinta on February 1, the Commission prioritized CEQA modernization and directed staff to aggressively advocate in Sacramento in concert with other stakeholders in the Inland Empire. Since then, staff reached out to councils of governments, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the League of California Cities, the CEQA Working Group, and legislative offices to foreshadow the Commission’s upcoming leadership activities to press for legislative action on CEQA and to devise a region wide strategy. In early February, the Executive Director, Government Relations Manager, and Commission’s Lobbyist Mark Watts visited the Capitol to meet with members of the Riverside County delegation. These meetings conveyed the Commission’s strong desires on CEQA. The Commission’s message was well received on both sides of the political aisle. The Commission also sensed an attitude that CEQA reforms would be achieved incrementally over a number of years. Nonetheless, the Commission’s efforts will continue. Commission staff has consulted with the CEQA Working Group, whose policy for CEQA modernization is attached to this staff report. Staff believes the working group’s strongly align with the Commission’s interests and therefore recommends the Commission endorse the principles and join as an official member of the working group. Membership will bring staff into coalition strategy discussions and provide statewide outreach for the Commission’s and working group’s message. There are no financial obligations to membership. Commissioners are welcomed to suggest membership for their own cities, regional boards, trade associations, business alliances, and other groups that lend diversity. The CEQA Working Group also prepared the attached template open letter to the Governor and Legislature designed for local government officials who wish to support CEQA reforms. Staff encourages Commissioners to share this letter with colleagues on their respective city councils and other regional boards. Concurrently, staff and legal counsel are preparing a resolution to be adopted by the Commission at its next meeting. The resolution will closely mirror the principles in the CEQA Working Group Policy Principles for CEQA Modernization and will also reflect any discussions that staff has in Sacramento in the interim. The intent of the resolution is to create a tool that could also be shared with city Agenda Item 11 councils, regional bodies, business groups, and community organizations for adoption and transmission to the Legislature and Governor. Staff believes it is essential that the Commission take some time to speak with legislative leaders to craft an advocacy agenda for the Commission that is achievable. In the meantime, it will be helpful to receive examples from Riverside County governments of worthy, environmentally beneficial public projects that have experienced CEQA abuse. These case studies can more fully “make the case” to decision makers. Commissioners are encouraged to have their city staffs contact Government Relations Manager Aaron Hake with information on any such projects within their cities or at the county of Riverside. In the meantime, staff believes it is important to begin engaging with statewide groups such as the CEQA Working Group. A long process of negotiation and public positioning is ahead for both sides of CEQA reform. Attachments: 1) CEQA Working Group Policy Principles for CEQA Modernization 2) CEQA Working Group Coalition List 3) Template Letter for Local Government Officials 4) SB 731 (Steinberg) Policy Principles for CEQA Modernization Problem: Thoughtful Reforms to CEQA Long Overdue  When the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted 40 years ago, the wide array of local, state and federal environmental and land use regulations that are now on the books didn’t exist. CEQA was essentially it.  In the 40 years since, Congress and the Legislature have adopted more than 120 laws to protect environmental quality in many of the same topical areas required to be independently mitigated under CEQA, including laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, GHG emissions reduction standards, SB 375 and more.  Despite these stringent environmental laws and local planning requirements, public and private projects throughout the state are commonly challenged under CEQA even when a project meets all other environmental standards of existing laws.  Many lawsuits are brought or threatened for non-environmental reasons and often times these lawsuits seek to halt environmentally desirable projects like clean power, infill and transit.  It is time to modernize CEQA to conform with California’s comprehensive environmental laws and regulations. Thoughtful CEQA reforms can preserve the law’s original intent – environmental protection – while preventing special interest CEQA abuses that jeopardize community renewal, job-creation and the environment. SOLUTION: Modernize CEQA to Protect Environment and Informed Public Participation, While Limiting Abuses The Working Group Supports the Following Four Principles to Modernize CEQA: 1. Integrate Environmental and Planning Laws  CEQA should continue to serve as the state environmental law for environmental impacts not regulated by standards set forth in other environmental and planning laws adopted since 1970.  However, where a federal, state or local environmental or land use law has been enacted to achieve environmental protection objectives (e.g., air and water quality, greenhouse gas emission reductions, endangered species, wetlands protections, etc.), CEQA review documents like EIRs should focus on fostering informed debate (including public notice and comment) by the public and decision makers about how applicable environmental standards reduce project impacts.  State agencies, local governments and other lead agencies would continue to retain full authority to reject projects, or to condition project approvals and impose additional mitigation measures consistent with their full authority under law other than CEQA. (more) www.CEQAWorkingGroup.com 75 2. Eliminate CEQA Duplication  As originally enacted, CEQA did not require further analysis of agency actions that already complied with CEQA-certified plans. But a 1987 court decision dramatically changed CEQA’s application and required CEQA to be applied even for projects that complied with such laws.  Reforms should return the law to its original intent and not require duplicative CEQA review for projects that already comply with approved plans for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has already been completed – particularly since existing laws also require both plans and projects to comply with our stringent environmental standards.  Local governments and other lead agencies would continue to retain full authority to reject projects or to condition project approvals and impose additional mitigation measures, consistent with their full authority under law other than CEQA. 3. Focus CEQA Litigation on Compliance with Environmental and Planning Laws  CEQA lawsuits would still be allowed to be filed for failure to comply with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements, including, for example adequate notice, adequate disclosure, adequate mitigation of environmental effects not regulated by other environmental or planning law, adequate consideration of alternatives to avoid unmitigated significant adverse impacts.  However, CEQA lawsuits could not be used to challenge adopted environmental standards, or to endlessly re-challenge approved plans by challenging projects that comply with plans.  Environmental and other public advocacy efforts to enact environmental protection laws should not be affected by any CEQA reform, and limiting CEQA litigation abuse can also inform advocacy efforts to revisit standards or plans.  Finally, "real" environmental lawsuits - seeking to enforce true environmental objectives - could still be pursued against agencies that fail to make regulatory or permitting decisions in compliance with standards and plans.  However, the current system of broad brush CEQA lawsuits that can be filed by any party for any purpose to challenge any or all environmental attributes of projects that comply with standards and plans are an outdated artifact of the "anything goes" environment of 1970, which now hinders both environmental improvement and economic recovery. 4. Enhance Public Disclosure and Accountability  CEQA would continue to mandate comprehensive environmental disclosure and informed public debate for all environmental impacts, including those covered by standards set in other environmental and planning laws.  CEQA’s public disclosure principles are enhanced by requiring an annual report of project compliance with required mitigation measures made electronically available to the public as part of the existing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan process.  CEQA lawsuits could no longer be filed by “anonymous” unincorporated associations with shadow members and hidden interests. Anyone seeking to enforce CEQA through litigation needs to disclose who they are, similar to campaign finance disclosure laws and court mandates for third parties seeking to file advocacy briefs in lawsuits. 76 1 CEQA Modernization Reforms Questions & Answers Do we need CEQA reform - and what do the reforms being pursued by the CEQA Working Group do? CEQA was adopted in 1970, at a time when it was the environmental law for our state: there was no federal or state Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, hazardous waste laws, or any of the other environmental laws (and thousands of federal and state regulations), or dozens of federal, state, regional and local agencies that now administer these laws to protect our environment and the health and safety of our communities. After 40 years and the enactment of thousands of new environmental protection laws and regulations, it’s time to update CEQA to better integrate our environmental standards and policy priorities, without diminishing environmental protection or informed public participation in the decision to consider or approve plans and projects. That's what the reforms do:  CEQA will continue to serve as the state environmental law for environmental impacts that are not regulated by standards set in other environmental and planning laws adopted since 1970.  CEQA will continue to mandate comprehensive environmental disclosure and informed public debate for all environmental impacts, including those covered by standards set in other environmental and planning laws.  An agency's authority to reject projects, or to condition project approvals on requirements that are more stringent than applicable standards, are preserved based on the legal authority - other than CEQA - vested in public agencies (e.g., constitutional police powers and other statutory authority conferred on cities and counties).  Duplicative CEQA lawsuits are eliminated for projects that comply with plans for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has already prepared.  CEQA’s public disclosure principles are enhanced by requiring an annual report of project compliance with required mitigation measures made electronically available to the public as part of the existing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan process.  With limited exceptions, CEQA lawsuits may still be filed for failure to comply with CEQA's procedural and substantive requirements (e.g., adequate notice, adequate disclosure, adequate mitigation of environmental effects not regulated by other environmental or planning law, adequate consideration of alternatives to avoid unmitigated significant adverse impacts, etc.).  To resolve conflicting judicial interpretations, CEQA is also clarified to assure that changes to private views and aesthetics are not appropriately considered as "impacts" for CEQA purposes.  No changes to "standing" (the right of a party to file a CEQA lawsuit) are proposed, nor do the reforms pursued by the CEQA Working Group) change the opportunity of a prevailing party to recovery attorneys’ fees. CEQA will continue to be subject to private enforcement lawsuits. www.CEQAWorkingGroup.com 77 2 How do the reforms integrate environmental standards with CEQA? California is a national leader in environmental protection, and as a state we are committed to protecting the environment, human health and safety. CEQA's 1970 vintage predates our 40-year history of passing thousands of stringent new environmental standards and CEQA represents a different paradigm for environmental protection. CEQA requires costly, often multi-year consultant studies of all potential environmental impacts, a project-specific determination by consultants, staff and agency decisionmakers as to whether each impact is "significant" even if it complies with other environmental standards, and a project-specific mandate to adopt "all feasible" measures - including mitigation measures, alternate project designs, and even alternate project locations - to avoid or further reduce significant impacts. As a result, even if a project complies with all of California's stringent environmental standards, CEQA lawsuits can be filed and a judge can overturn project approvals and require more study. The reforms pursued by the CEQA Working Group would create a level playing field for California state law by excluding from the scope of CEQA litigation impacts for which there are adopted environmental standards for which the EIR mandates compliance. How do the reforms protect the environment and public health while eliminating duplicative CEQA review? CEQA review is required not just for projects, but also for plans or programs adopted by a public agency. CEQA also requires environmental impacts to be considered at the earliest phase of public agency decisionmaking to assure that environmental and public health issues are considered early - before an agency is committed to a particular course of action. Before a 1987 court decision, duplicative CEQA review was not required for projects that complied with land use plans like General Plans and zoning designations. Since then, new rounds of CEQA review have been required every time a project receives a "discretionary approval" from any state or local agency, even if the project complies with both environmental standards and applicable plans. Each discretionary approval creates a new CEQA litigation opportunity. While the bill continues to require lead agency conduct project level environmental review even for projects that are consistent with applicable plans, it would end duplicative CEQA litigation for land use projects that comply with the land use type, density and intensity designations in a land use plan that has been adopted based on an EIR, and for projects included in other types of plans that have under gone CEQA review, provided that:  Such projects are required to comply with applicable mitigation measures from the Plan EIR; and  Annual reports are filed electronically, and made available to the public on a public website, describing the project's compliance with applicable mitigation measures to allow for public monitoring and auditing of plan implementation activities. While plans may have "program-level" or "programmatic" EIRs, such EIRs must still address all CEQA environmental and public health impacts, and must still assess the environmental significance of plan approval and implementation, and require feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts. 78 3 Less than 2% of CEQA decisions are challenged in litigation - there is no CEQA litigation abuse. CEQA abuse occurs not only through meritless lawsuits, but also by the threat of litigation. Considering that the outcome of CEQA litigation is only 50-50 at best (even when a full EIR has been undertaken) the mere threat of litigation is enough to cause uncertainty and stall or prevent projects from going forward. We recently passed a number of CEQA reforms. Shouldn't we give these time to work? Recent CEQA legislative reform efforts have focused on providing "exemptions" from CEQA for projects that meet a complicated matrix of qualifying criteria, or of offering very limited reductions in either the scope or schedule required to comply with the CEQA process. These efforts have failed. Special exemptions for a minor handful of projects have not benefited California. In 2011, two "reform" statutes were enacted that purported to streamline the CEQA compliance process.  AB 900 eliminated superior court review for qualifying employment and renewable energy projects, and established an elaborate enrollment process whereby both Governor's approval and further legislative review was required for projects seeking this status. SB 900 was challenged as unconstitutional in a recent lawsuit filed by the Planning and Conservation League, and only one project has completed the enrollment process. Further, AB 900 expires in two years.  SB 226 was enacted to create an exemption for solar PV rooftop installations, which were already commonly approved throughout California through categorical exemptions and Negative Declarations. AB 226 also attempts to create CEQA streamlining for qualified infill projects that comply with land use plans including "performance standards" established to avoid or minimize impacts. The regulations needed to implement this part of AB 226 are not scheduled to become effective until December 2012, and litigation has again been threatened over the issue of whether streamlined CEQA documents required under AB 226 for infill projects are subject to a "fair argument" standard of review or the "substantial evidence" standard of review. If the fair argument test is ultimately determined, through litigation, to apply to AB 226 streamlining, it is highly unlikely that project sponsors or lead agencies will use AB 226. Even if the substantial evidence test does apply, the judicial loss rate remains 50/50 - a coin toss. None of the adopted reforms has had any actual effect (i.e., none have resulted in projects being approved or built), and all are subject to known severe limitations on availability and practical effect. Why not just give exemptions to specialty projects? Providing exemptions to a small number of projects doesn’t address the underlying need to bring CEQA up to date with current environmental law. It’s a matter of fairness. Small infill projects, affordable housing, schools, small businesses and other local projects should be entitled to reforms, not just select special projects. Additionally, project by project CEQA exemption bills remove entire projects from the requirements of CEQA. The reforms pursued by the CEQA Working Group maintain and enhance CEQA’s goal to ensure environmental disclosure and informed public debate by (1) preserving the requirement to develop environmental documents for projects, and (2) mandating public release of annual reports disclosing project compliance with required mitigation measures. 79 4 Doesn't your proposal gut California's environmental law that protects our air, water and public health? No. Federal and state Clean Air, Clean Water, and toxic materials handling laws protect air, water and public health based on science and laws - and these standards are in effect every day, for thousands of regulated activities, and violators are subject to civil and criminal prosecution. The reforms retain all existing California environmental laws and regulations, and ensure that CEQA remains a tool to evaluate the impacts of a proposed project, to provide adequate input from the community, and to require mitigation to reduce projects’ impacts on the environment. Can project opponents still sue under CEQA? Yes, with limited exceptions opponents can challenge whether lead agencies complied with the procedural requirements of CEQA (e.g., adequate project descriptions, adequate notice and public hearings, etc.). Opponents can also sue under CEQA's substantive requirement to feasibly mitigate significant adverse impacts for topical areas that are not subject to federal, state or local standards or plans. Opponents cannot sue an agency under CEQA over whether project impacts that are subject to federal, state or local standards or plans are significant or adequately mitigated for CEQA purposes. Can communities sue if they believe projects will not comply with applicable federal, state or local standards and plans? Yes, opponents can sue the agency responsible for implementing the standard or plan requirements for failure to enforce its standards or plans if they believe a project is being unlawfully considered by another agency. An opponent can sue under a "writ of mandate" - the same legal mechanism used for CEQA lawsuits - to compel an agency to fulfill that agency's obligation to enforce that agency's standards and plans, but they cannot sue such agencies under CEQA. Can communities sue if they don't like a standard or plan? Yes, but not under CEQA. The reforms pursued by the CEQA Working Group do not change other existing laws, which allow lawsuits to be filed against agencies that unlawfully adopt or implement regulations and plans that violate the statutes. To the extent CEQA was being used by advocacy groups to bypass the legislative process that resulted in adoption of a statute, and use CEQA lawsuits to create "another bite at the apple" by re-opening the adequacy of standards adopted by statute (e.g., AB 32 or SB 375), the reforms eliminate this CEQA abuse and upholds the role of elected officials in making policy decisions about environmental standards. Does this proposal change the fair argument standard? No. Negative Declarations, and categorical exemptions for projects with "unusual circumstances", will continue to be subject to the "fair argument" standard of review for topical areas not superseded by applicable environmental standards and plans. Will this prohibit groups from suing because of aesthetics? Yes in part. Aesthetic impacts to designated public scenic resources such as highways continue to be covered by CEQA, and can be the subject of a lawsuit. The reforms clarify that changes to private views and other aesthetic design issues are not properly considered impacts for CEQA purposes. 80 5 Will Native American Cultural considerations be protected? Yes. The reforms specifically clarify that there will be no change in the consideration and protection of Native American resources under CEQA. What is the problem when 99% of CEQA studies go unchallenged in court? The judicial loss rate remains 50/50 - a coin toss - under CEQA litigation. Such lawsuit outcomes typically emerge 2-4 years after project approval, and project approval itself typically follows 1-3 years of study, community outreach, and agency permitting. In other words, projects that are challenged under CEQA are substantially affected, often derailing projects in their entirety. The reforms will address such outcomes without negatively impacting the environment. Does the bill exempt large or high-polluting projects from environmental review? The bill does not create any exemptions for any project: CEQA continues to apply to all types of projects. It also preserves full disclosure, informed debate, and the right of communities and lead agencies to impose mitigation measures and other conditions to assure that community-based standards and concerns are met. The bill does prevent CEQA from being used as a basis for suing projects that comply with environmental standards, or with plans that have already gone through the CEQA review process. Do the reforms pursued by the CEQA Working Group Weaken SB 375, Greenhouse Gas Law or other CEQA Infill Reforms? No. In fact, the reforms are critical to the successful implementation of SB 375, which requires California to adjust our land use pattern to encourage higher density infill and transit-oriented development. Community plans for implementing SB 375 have repeatedly been delayed and threatened with derailment by CEQA lawsuits. For example, a CEQA lawsuit has delayed implementation of the San Diego Sustainable Communities Plan - which CARB approved as meeting SB 375 mandates. And scores of infill projects have also been sued under CEQA, even though these projects comply with applicable standards and adopted community plans that have already gone through the CEQA approval process. We cannot achieve SB 375 under CEQA's current structure, which allows anyone to sue any project - often multiple times - even if projects comply with law and will help implement SB 375. Will the proposal promote urban sprawl? No. It only applies to projects that comply with applicable environmental standards (including SB 375 and other infill-oriented mandates) or land use and other plans that have been adopted in compliance with CEQA. It also requires full compliance with standards and plans requiring preservation and mitigation of parks and agricultural lands. Does the proposal exempt projects based on outdated plans? No. The bill’s plan-consistency provisions require projects to comply with environmental standards and applicable plans. If an outdated plan does not comply with an applicable environmental standard, then the project would be required to meet the environmental standard - and the project's compliance with an outdated plan provides no legal shelter from a lawsuit challenging a project that violates environmental standards. Would the reforms apply even where plans conflict with one another? The bill’s plan-consistency provisions would require compliance with applicable environmental standards and applicable plans (including mitigation measures). The proposal makes no change to existing law, which requires consideration of all applicable plans and informed disclosure and 81 6 appropriate resolution of any plan conflicts, including potential conflicts in density, intensity and use restrictions. Aren't you falsely blaming our economic problems and job loss on CEQA when the real culprit is the mortgage meltdown, tight availability of credit, and slow consumer demand? There are a number of factors contributing to the economic meltdown. Both before and during this recession, however, the current version of CEQA is an obstacle to achieving the next generation of necessary improvements. CEQA's power to derail progress means it is now an obstacle to the change we have decided is critical for the environment and public health: transit-oriented, higher-density development patterns; renewable power; a new manufacturing base for Greentech; and major new infrastructure projects like high speed rail and Bay Delta and water supply protections. Aren't the real interests behind this proposal the polluters and exploiters of our natural resources who will profit from this destructive plan? A broad coalition of groups representing schools, hospitals, public transit, affordable housing, renewable energy, local governments and many others agree it’s time to reform CEQA to preserve its original intent – environmental protection and information – while stamping out abuses of the CEQA process brought for non-environmental reasons. 82 BLANK Please complete form and email or fax to mgamble@bcfpublicaffairs.com or 916-442-3510 January 2013 Dear Governor Jerry Brown, Members, California State Senate and Assembly: We, the undersigned local elected officials, urge you to adopt legislation that would modernize the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to preserve the law’s original intent – environmental protection and public disclosure and participation – while stamping out abuses to CEQA that undermine local control, local economic development and jobs, and environmentally responsible growth. CEQA is an important law to ensure local governments have the information and tools to protect our local communities, and to allow for citizen involvement in local land-use decisions. In the 43 years since CEQA was passed, Congress and the Legislature have adopted more than 120 laws to protect the environment including air quality, water quality, species protection, greenhouse gas reduction, responsible land-use planning and more. Local governments have also adopted countless local land-use laws, general plans and regulations that regulate growth and development to reflect the needs of local communities. However, because CEQA has not received a major update in four decades, many important local projects are being held-up by CEQA challenges – even when a project complies with all of California’s toughest-in-the-nation environmental standards and when projects are approved by local governments after complying with all local standards and required mitigation. Often times, these lawsuits and threats of litigation undermine the authority of locally elected officials, because the courts or judges override local decision making and local control. CEQA challenges also undermine the ability of local governments to approve vital local community projects. We, the undersigned, support efforts to modernize CEQA to preserve the law’s original intent – environmental protection and public disclosure and participation – while eliminating challenges that are brought even after projects comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, regulations and approvals. We look forward to working with you to promote meaningful and responsible CEQA reform this year. Sincerely, I agree to be publicly listed on this letter as an endorser of CEQA modernization. Local Government Officials in Support of CEQA Modernization An open letter to the California Legislature. Name Title, City Street Address City Zip County Phone Number Email Address Signature (Required) Date BLANK SENATE BILL No. 731 Introduced by Senator Steinberg February 22, 2013 An act relating to the environment. legislative counsel’s digest SB 731, as introduced, Steinberg. Environment: California Environmental Quality Act and sustainable communities strategy. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation revising CEQA to, among other things, provide greater certainty for smart infill development, streamline the law for specified projects, and establish a threshold of significance for specified impacts. Existing law requires the regional transportation plan for regions of the state with a metropolitan planning organization to each adopt a sustainable communities strategy, as part of their regional transportation plan, as specified, designed to achieve certain goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks in a region. Existing law establishes the Strategic Growth Council to manage 99 84 and award grants and loans to support the planning and development of sustainable communities strategies. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to provide $30,000,000 annually to the council for the purposes of providing planning incentive grants to local and regional agencies to update and implement general plans, sustainable communities strategies, and smart growth plans. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. (a)  It is the intent of the Legislature to enact line 2 legislation to adopt provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with line 3 Section 15000) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of line 4 Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) that are intended to provide greater line 5 certainty for smart infill development, such as Section 15183.3 of line 6 the CEQA Guidelines and related appendices that implement line 7 Chapter 469 of the Statutes of 2011. It is further the intent of the line 8 Legislature to explore amendments to expand the definition of line 9 “infill” and to accommodate infill development in the Central line 10 Valley. line 11 (b)  It is the intent of the Legislature to explore amendments to line 12 the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 line 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), line 14 to further streamline the law for renewable energy projects, line 15 advanced manufacturing projects, transit, bike, and pedestrian line 16 projects, and renewable energy transmission projects. line 17 (c)  (1)  It is the intent of the Legislature to update CEQA to line 18 establish a threshold of significance for noise, aesthetics, parking, line 19 and traffic levels of service, and thresholds relating to these land line 20 use impacts, so that project meeting those thresholds are not subject line 21 to further environmental review for those environmental impacts. line 22 It is further the intent of the Legislature to review other similar line 23 land-use- related impacts to determine if other thresholds of line 24 significance can be set. line 25 (2)  It is not the intent of the Legislature to affect authority, line 26 consistent with CEQA, for a local agency to impose its own, more line 27 stringent thresholds. 99 — 2 —SB 731 85 line 1 (3)  It is not the intent of the Legislature to replace full CEQA line 2 analysis with state or local standards, with the exception of the line 3 land use standards described in paragraph (1). line 4 (d)  It is the intent of the Legislature to amend Section 65456, line 5 which exempts from CEQA projects undertaken pursuant to a line 6 specific plan for which an EIR has been prepared, unless conditions line 7 specified under Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code have line 8 occurred, to define with greater specificity what “new information” line 9 means, and to avoid duplicative CEQA review for projects and line 10 activities that comply with that plan. It is further the intent of the line 11 Legislature to review the possibility of defining other types of line 12 plans to determine if similar treatment could be applied to those line 13 plans or portions of those plans that are consistent with sustainable line 14 communities strategies adopted pursuant to Section 65080 of the line 15 Government Code or that have had a certified EIR within the past line 16 five years. line 17 (e)  It is the intent of the Legislature to enact amendments to line 18 Section 21168.9 to establish clearer procedures for a trial court to line 19 remand to a lead agency for remedying only those portions of an line 20 EIR, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration found line 21 to be in violation of CEQA, while retaining those portions that are line 22 not in violation so that the violations can be corrected, recirculated line 23 for public comment, and completed more efficiently and line 24 expeditiously. It is further the intent of the Legislature to explore line 25 options under which a court could allow project approvals to line 26 remain in place, and for projects to proceed. line 27 (f)  It is the intent of the Legislature to amend Section 21091 of line 28 the Public Resources Code and related provisions of law to line 29 establish clear statutory rules under which “late hits” and line 30 “document dumps” are prohibited or restricted prior to certification line 31 of an EIR, if a project proponent or lead agency has not line 32 substantively changed the draft EIR or substantively modified the line 33 project. line 34 (g)  It is the intent of the Legislature to provide $30 million line 35 annually to the Strategic Growth Council for the purposes of line 36 providing planning incentive grants to local and regional agencies line 37 to update and implement general plans, sustainable communities 99 SB 731— 3 — 86 line 1 strategies, and smart growth plans pursuant to Chapter 728 of the line 2 Statutes of 2008. O 99 — 4 —SB 731 87 California Alliance for Jobs Silicon Valley Leadership Group California’s Coalition for Adequate School Housing California Hospital Association Transportation California California Transit Association Riverside County Transportation Commission California Housing Consortium San Diego Housing Commission San Francisco Housing Action Coalition SummerHill Apartment Communities California Small Business Association Southern California Association of Governments San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Bay Planning Coalition Association of California Cities Orange County Central City Association of Los Angeles Southern California Water Committee Pacific Merchant Shipping Association Associated General Contractors of California Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation Santa Clarita Valley Economic Development Corporation California Chamber of Commerce National Federation of Independent Business California Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Greater Antelope Valley Economic Alliance Bay Area Council Central California Council North Bay Leadership Council Orange County Business Council Sonoma County Alliance Southwest California Legislative Council San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership Inland Empire Economic Partnership Valley Industry and Commerce Association Los Angeles County Business Federation Antelope Valley Board of Trade American Council of Engineering Companies of California American Institute of Architects California Council American Institute of Architects Los Angeles West Coast Lumber and Building Material Association Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Hollywood Chamber of Commerce South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties Brea Chamber of Commerce Fresno Chamber of Commerce Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce California Association of REALTORS® Coalition List www.CEQAWorkingGroup.com (more) 88 California Construction & Industrial Materials Association California Building Industry Association California Business Roundtable California Business Properties Association California Retailers’ Association Arcadia Association of REALTORS® Southwest Riverside County Association of REALTORS® Humboldt Association of REALTORS® Placer County Association of REALTORS® San Mateo County Association of REALTORS® Ventura County Coastal Association of REALTORS® Contra Costa Association of REALTORS® San Francisco Association of REALTORS® Santa Barbara Association of REALTORS® Rancon Real Estate Beal & Associates Inc. The High Country Group Temecula Homes and Land Cerrell Associates Inc. 89 1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) MODERNATIZATION Budget Process •43-year-old law –Hundreds of incremental changes since then (state, local levels) –No holistic review of the law, results •Abused for non-environmental purposes •Result = waste of taxpayer resources, delay of environmentally beneficial projects 2 The Problem Recent Momentum •Special exemption and narrow streamlining bills pass in 2009, 2011 •Senator Rubio introduces comprehensive reform bill in August 2012 •Rubio bill tabled: Pro-Tem Steinberg and Governor commit to prioritizing the issue in 2013 –Steinberg appoints Rubio* to chair Committee on Environmental Quality –Committee has 7 Democrats, 2 Republicans •Coalitions form on both sides of issue 3 Two Factions CEQA Working Group CEQA Works 4 Thoughtful Principles for Reform •Preserve law’s original intent: environmental protection •Prevent special interest abuses that jeopardize community renewal, job- creation, and the environment 1.Integrate Environmental and Planning Laws 2.Eliminate CEQA Duplication 3.Focus CEQA Litigation on Compliance w/Environmental and Planning Laws 4.Enhance Public Disclosure and Accountability 5 “CEQA reform is the Lord's work.” –Gov. Jerry Brown, August 2012 “We also need to rethink and streamline our regulatory procedures, particularly the California Environmental Quality Act. Our approach needs to be based more on consistent standards that provide greater certainty and cut needless delays.” –Gov. Jerry Brown, State of the State Address 2013 6 What they said… Management Services “I have always been a strong believer and staunch defender of the California Environmental Quality Act. For more than four decades, CEQA has protected California communities and preserved our wildlife habitat, our farmlands and the natural treasures of this state. But like any well- intentioned law in existence for more than 40 years, changes are needed to eliminate abuses. We must ensure CEQA is used to protect our environment through a more efficient and timely process.” –Senate President Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg, September 2012 7 What they said… CEQA Legislation Introduced 8 AB 37 (Perea) AB 52 (Gatto) AB 253 (Levine) AB 380 (Dickinson) AB 417 (Frazier) AB 515 (Dickinson) AB 543 (Campos) AB 628 (Gorrell) AB 756 (Melendez)* AB 794 (Gorrell) AB 823 (Eggman) AB 930 (Hall) AB 953 (Ammiano) AB 1060 (Fox) AB 1079 (Bradford) AB 1267 (Hall) AB 1323 (Mitchell) SB 123 (Corbett) SB 167 (Gaines)* SB 359 (Corbett)* SB 436 (Jackson) SB 525 (Galgiani) SB 617 (Evans) SB 633 (Pavley) SB 731 (Steinberg)* SB 739 (Calderon)* SB 754 (Evans)* SB 787 (Berryhill) Focus: SB 731 (Steinberg) What’s on the table, so far: •Update CEQA thresholds: –Noise, aesthetics, parking, traffic •Clearer procedure for trial courts •Avoid duplicative reviews •Clear rules on document dumps •Streamline certain project types: –Bike/ped, transit, renewable energy, manufacturing, infill development What’s not… •Replacing CEQA w/other state or local standards (“standards approach”) –i.e., if a project is compliant with another plan that has an approved CEQA document, that project is compliant w/CEQA 9But what does this all REALLY mean? Vision & Goals Be Persistent Media Local/Regional Govs & Orgs Physical Sacramento Presence Work with Statewide Groups CEQA Working Group League/CSAC/CTA Labor Provide Expertise & Experience to Sacramento Local Examples: Success & Frustrations Legal Resources Set Realistic Expectations Incremental Successes Multi-Year Approach Stick Together Recommended Action Join CEQA Working Group Adopt “Principles for Reform” 11 Next Steps Send formal letter to Governor, Legislature Coordinate with regional partners Take positions on CEQA bills Continue Engagement with Legislators 12