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