Loading...
07 July 14, 1999 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00103 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION http://www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. Chancellor's Conference Room, #207 University of California @ Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Riverside 92507 9:00 A.M. Wednesday, July 14, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items Not Listed on the Agenda). 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 2, 1999 5. 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 a 2/3 vote of the Commission, or if less than 2/3 of the Commission members are present, a unanimous vote.) 6. 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. 6A. FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5311 RURAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Overview It is recommended that the Commission approve the proposed FY 1999- 2000 FTA Section 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County. RCTC Meeting Agenda July 14, 1999 Page 2 6B. UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES; ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 99-008 "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING A FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA". Overview This item was reviewed by Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council and the Plans and Programs Committee. It is recommended that the Commission: 1. Reaffirm its definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet"; 2. That based upon a review of requests for services received through the "unmet transit needs" hearing process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, make a finding that there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley area; 3. Adopt Resolution No. 99-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Finding that There are No Unmet Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area". 6C. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL Overview It is recommend that the Commission approve the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Riverside Transit Agency and Regional Commuter Rail as presented. RCTC Meeting Agenda July 14, 1999 Page 3 6D. FY 1999-2000 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT Overview It is recommended that the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for transit in Riverside County as shown on the table in the agenda packet. 6E. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) CALL FOR PROJECTS Overview Direct staff to develop and release a Call for Projects; designate the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee as the Evaluation Committee. 6F. REAFFIRMATION OF CONFORMITY FINDINGS OF THE 1998 RTP AND RTIP FOR PM10 NON -ATTAINMENT AREAS Overview It is recommended that the Commission receive and file the report on reaffirmation of conformity findings of the 1998 RTP and RTIP for PM10 non -attainment areas. 6G. AMENDMENT TO FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Overview Approve the revised Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Beaumont. RCTC Meeting Agenda July 14, 1999 Page 4 6H. FY 2000-2004 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Overview Approve the FY 2000-2004 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans, including the City of Calimesa's Plan for FY 1999, as submitted. 61. AWARD OF AMENDMENT #3 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9832 FOR NINYO & MOORE TO PROVIDE ON -CALL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR MEASURE "A" CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE 1999/2000 FISCAL YEAR. Overview This item is to authorize the award of Amendment No. 3 to Contract RO- 9832 to Ninyo & Moore to provide on -call construction material testing services for the projects identified in the staff report for a base amount of $77,185 and an additional extra work amount of $22,815, for a total not to exceed amendment value of $100,000. The extra work contingency will be used as authorized by the Executive Director. The RCTC standard consultant amendment will be used subject to Legal Counsel review and approval. 6J. SMART CALL BOX PROJECT/BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Overview This item is to approve the FY 1998-99 budget adjustment to support the Smart Call Box Pilot Program. 6K. FY 1990-00 SB 821 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Overview Approve the SB 821 allocations as shown in the attached schedule RCTC Meeting Agenda July 14, 1999 Page 5 6L. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Overview Grant the County's request to amend the site location for the Serfas Club Drive project and approve time extensions as requested. 6M. 1999 REVISIONS TO LOCAL GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-007, 'A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT" Overview The 1999 revisions to the local guidelines to implement CEQA is presented. It is recommended that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-007, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (pub. Resources Code § §2100 Et Seq.). " 6N. AMEND RCTC DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (DBE) PROGRAM AND OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS Overview The amended program and proposed DBE goal for federally funded projects were presented to the Plans and Programs Committee and they recommend that the Commission: 1) Adopt the amended RCTC Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program; 2) Set RCTC's overall DBE goal at 1 1.6%; and, 3) Authorize staff to resubmit its adopted plan and goal to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). RCTC Meeting Agenda July 14, 1999 Page 6 60. APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 99-009, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING ITS PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS" Overview The language change proposed for Section 6.3, Holiday Leave, of the Personnel Rules and Regulations is a clarification on the number of hours covered in designated holiday. 6P. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview This item is to receive and file the status report. 6Q. MONTHLY COST SCHEDULE REPORT Overview This report is for receive and file. 6R. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR RCTC/SANBAG SHARED STATE AND FEDERAL ADVOCATES Overview This item is to approve two (2) RFP's: 1) RCTC and SANBAG shared State advocacy services; and 2) RCTC and SANBAG shared Federal advocacy services. 6S. SCHEDULE OF RECURRING CONSULTANTS Overview This item is to approve the Schedule of Recurring Consultants. The contracts will be for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. RCTC Meeting Agenda July 14, 1999 Page 7 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7A. FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS (5 Minutes) Overview A notice for the public hearing was posted in the Press Enterprise. It is recommended that the Commission approve the proposed FY 2000 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County. 7B. HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APNS 233-130-020, 233-130-007, 233,140-004 AND 233-140-005, BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALL #98, AND RELATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, ALONG STATE ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON AND MONROE STREETS, IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA (5 Minutes) Overview That the Commission make the necessary findings, as stated in the agenda report, and Adopt Resolution No. 99-006. 8. STATE ROUTE (SR) 71/91 IMPROVEMENT STUDY (10 Minutes) Overview The SR 71/91 Improvement Study was prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. Eric Keen of HDR will be present at the Commission meeting to provide a brief summary on the alternatives and recommendations. It is recommended that the Commission approve the SR 71/91 Improvement Study Final Report. RCTC Meeting Agenda July 14, 1999 Page 8 9. PRESENTATION OF COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (CVAG) TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITIZATION STUDY (10 Minutes) Overview Presented to the Commission is CVAG's Transportation Project Prioritization Study and Regional Cost Estimate. 10. FY 2000-2003 CONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (4 Minutes) Overview Approve the proposed list of projects for CMAQ Improvement funds available in the South Coast and Salton Sea Air Basins and direct staff to include these projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (7 Minutes) Overview That the Commission Adopt AB 102 - change from "Seek Amendment" to "Oppose;"SB 928 - "Support." Receive and file Legislative Update. 12. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH GLADSTEIN & ASSOCIATES IN SUPPORT OF THE INTERSTATE CLEAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT (2 Minutes) Overview Approve: 1) entering into a consultant agreement with Gladstein & Associates; and 2) allocation of $25,000 for the work effort. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA RCTC Meeting Agenda July 14, 1999 Page 9 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 15. ADJOURNMENT. The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held in Corona at the Corona Public Library, 650 South Main Street, Corona, on September 8, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON MINUTES June 2, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 9:00 a.m. at the UCR Chancellors Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507. Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Gene Bourbonnais* Percy L. Byrd John M. Chlebnik Alex Clifford Frank Hall Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Tom Mullen* Kevin W. Pape * John J. Pena Gregory S. Pettis Robin Reeser Lowe Ron Roberts Jim Smedley Doug Sherman John F. Tavaglione Jack van Haaster James A. Venable* Frank West Roy Wilson * Arrived after start of meeting 2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS A roundtable self introductions followed. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. Bob Buster Robert Crain Juan M. DeLara John Hunt Al Landers Jan Leja Stan Lisiewicz Andrea M. Puga Chris B. Silva Donald F. Yokaitis RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 12, 1999 and May 24, 1999 M/S/C (Kleindienst/Byrd) approve the minutes of the May 12, 1999, and May 24, 1999, meetings as submitted. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. It was requested that Agenda Item No. 6R, "Quarterly Financial Reports", be pulled from the Consent Calendar. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR. M/SIC (Clifford/Kleindienst) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 6A. STIP PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN RCTC AND CVAG Approve and execute the attached funding agreement between RCTC and CVAG for the use of STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds. 6B. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE CITIES OF BANNING, CATHEDRAL CITY, CORONA, MORENO VALLEY, PALM SPRINGS, RIVERSIDE AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Approve the extension requests from the above named cities. 6C. STATE AND FEDERAL UPDATE Approve the staff recommended bill positions as indicated and receive and file the Legislative Update. 6D. EVALUATION/SAVINGS OF RCTC/SANBAG DUE TO SHARED DIRECTOR OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Approve continuation of the shared position. 6E. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR THE PEDLEY STATION SECURITY SYSTEM DESIGN Direct staff to reject the proposals received and reissue the RFP. 6F. NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) TO START THE PROCESS TO ACQUIRE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS (TCE'S) BY EMINENT DOMAIN REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALL #98 ALONG AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON STREET & MONROE STREET IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 3 Authorize staff to proceed with a Notice of Intent (N01) to start the process to acquire the Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's) by Eminent Domain required for the construction of Sound Wall #98 along the South side of State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside. 6G. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT NO. RO-9970 TO PRODUCE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FUTURE NORTH/SOUTH CORRIDORS BETWEEN 1-10 AND SR-60 BETWEEN 1-15 AND 1-215 Award Consultant Contract No. RO-9970 to produce a Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215 for the amount of $99,867. 6H. SUPPLEMENT TO AMENDMENT #10 TO AGREEMENT RO 9337 WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR STATE ROUTE 74 SHOPP PROJECTS Approve $195,610 for the County of Riverside to acquire the 40 additional SHOPP project parcels. 61. RESOLUTION NO. 99-005, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEASURE A FUNDED COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROJECTS AS PART OF ITS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM" Approve Resolution No. 99-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending guidelines for the. Administration of the Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as part of its Commuter Assistance Program." 6J. SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FY 99/00 COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT 1) Approve the SANBAG/RCTC contract to continue implementation and management of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program for FY 99/00; 2) Authorize the Chairperson to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve the incorporation of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program consultant costs in the Commission's TDM consultant to perform the work. 6K. FY 99/00 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RIDESHARE AGREEMENT FOR REGIONAL RIDESHARE CORE SERVICES 11Approve the Southern California Rideshare FY 99/00 Riverside Regional Rideshare Services Work Program, 2) Authorize the expenditure of Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds in an amount not to exceed $253,141 pursuant to adoption of RCTC's FY 99/00 budget, and 3) Pursuant to legal counsel review and approval, authorize the RCTC Chairman to execute an agreement with SCR. RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 4 6L. FY 99/00 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS. Approve, pursuant to its existing Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Policy: 11 payment of $1,175/month for the period July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 to the existing Riverside/Fullerton, Riverside/EI Segundo, and Moreno Valley/EI Segundo buspools, and one additional buspool upon receipt of a written request for a subsidy support; and 2) continuation of the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. 6M. MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Approve the FY 1999-2000 minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio of 18.35% for the Riverside Transit Agency and 16.56% for the SunLine Transit Agency; 2) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; and, 3) Request CalTrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for FY 1999-2000. 6N. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR OPERATIONAL AND STATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE METROLINK STATION Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids. 60. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR CALL BOX SUPPORT SERVICES Award contract for call box support services to TeleTran Tek Services in the amount of $62,924 for fiscal year 1999-20000 along with four (4) one-year options to renew. 6P. MONTHLY COST & SCHEDULE REPORTS Receive and file 6Q. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE Receive and file 6S. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file 6T. GFOA DISTINGUISHED BUDGET AWARD Receive and file RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 5 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7A. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY ENDING JUNE 2000 Chief Financial Officer, Dean Martin, informed the Commission that the budget had been revised to a total of $1 1 1 million from the $103 million in the draft budget. Changes to the budget, which include capital project changes, are noted in the staff memorandum. He added that RCTC received a budget award from Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and he credited the Commission and all staff for the award. Chairman Jack van Haaster opened the public hearing. Hearing or seeing no one, the public hearing was closed. M/S/C (Smedley/Roberts) approve the Proposed Budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. 8. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Jerry Rivera, Project Manager, stated that presented to the Commission were Short Range Transit Plans for Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside Special Services, and SunLine Transit Agency . The Plans have been reviewed by the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) and by the Plans/Programs Committee and they recommended approval. At this time, Jerry Rivera introduced Leslie Grosjean, SunLine Transit Agency's Senior Transportation Analyst. Leslie Grosjean reviewed the proposed service changes for the upcoming year. Over the last two months. SunLine held four transportation "tune-ups" which was attended by approximately 200 people. The changes were well received. Ridership has increased by 15 % in the recent months. Service changes include improvements to Line 1 1 1 by increasing hours by 12% and adding limited stop service during the tourist season, increase service on Line 30 by 15% with the addition of one bus 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, adding one morning and one afternoon trip on Saturday to the Palm Springs Tramway on Line 24, implementation of the SunLink service, and adding one expansion paratransit vehicle to the fleet to increase the dial -a -ride capacity. In response to Commissioner Jim Smedley's question plans for SunLine to link up with RTA's new satellite location in Banning, Ray Grosclaude, SunLine's Director of Transportation, indicated that meetings to discussed this matter arecurrently being scheduled and that this is included in the budget. Commissioner Ron Roberts complimented SunLine on implementing the SunLink Service and asked if they had done surveys to see if there was ridership or if this was a test to see if they could generate ridership to MetroLink. Leslie Grosjean indicated that it was both. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, noted that the following changes to the Short Range Transit Plan: 1) Banning - discontinue Cabazon Express and to reroute the fixed route for greater access to Cabazon and Banning commercial areas; 2) Beaumont - fixed route and dial -a -ride services will be expanded to Saturdays, run services two hours earlier in the morning and RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 6 one hour later in the evening; 3) Corona - will hold public hearings during the next fiscal year for a proposed fair increase and solicit input for planned service changes ; and, 4) Riverside Special Services - service to the County Regional Medical Center in Moreno Valley was terminated; service hours previously used for the service were added to the dial-a-rida service. M/S/C (Wilson/Hall) approve the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside and the SunLine Transit Agency as presented. 9. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PILOT PROJECT EVALUATION Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst, stated that as part of the 1997 program update, the Land Use Element was modified from requiring traffic impact assessment for each development generating over 200 peak hour trips impacting the CMP network to implement an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommended that a pilot project consisting of the purchase and installation of 10 Smart Call Boxes along the CMP network of roads and highways. Georgienna Vivian, VRPA Technologies, stated that the Smart Call Boxes was initiated in January 1999 and the report's conclusions and recommendations were: 1) the Smart call box technology can provide significant improvements in the amount and quality of traffic count data for transportation planning, engineering, modeling, and funding allocations difference between allocation purposes; 2) by using the existing inductive loop infrastructure provides savings in capital costs; 3) reduced staff time in collecting and managing data; and, 4) the level of service calculations can be generated to reflect existing conditions. A comparison was made between the traditional way of counting traffic and through the Smart call box and the results were very comparable. There is not much difference in the assessment of capital cost. The advantage of having the Smart Call Box in place is that information can be downloaded from the office 365 days per year. This will ensure compliance with CMP as it relates to federal and state monitoring requirements and will be of assistance in measuring the remaining capacity on highway/roadway system. The Smart call box will also be able to sense different weather conditions, and those have already been tested in San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. There is potential for sensing fog, blow sand, high wind conditions and there is also a potential for video sensing, and especially for air quality. In response to Commissioner Alex Clifford question about payback and of any real time benefit/application, Georgiena Vivian explained that the data is collected at least quarterly to meet federal/state monitoring requirements and that is what was used for purposes of establishing the costs. Over a ten year period, there will be a cost benefit to the Smart call box program in downloading only four times per year which includes replacement and maintenance of equipment over that time period. Commissioner Percy Byrd asked if steps were in place for any Y2K considerations and Georgiena Vivian indicated that this was checked as well as in-house call box manager program. The program was enhanced to be ready for any Y2K problems. RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Jim Smedley asked if this was an unfunded mandate or if there was potential to apply for grants and Georgiena Vivian said that this was an unfunded mandate. Commissioner John Pena asked about down time due to accidents or vandalism. Georgiena Vivian said that down time has not been experienced with the 20 Smart call boxes. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, stated that with the standard call boxes, there were approximately 5-6 knockdowns per month with 1 120 standard boxes. Commissioner Jim Smedley stated that without the SMART Call Boxes we would not meet the federal and statement mandates and, therefore, should not try to justify the costs. Eric Haley, Executive Director, explained that there are requirements of the Commission as the County Congestion Management Agency. He noted that there are savings in direct staff cost by choosing a technology response rather than having a dedicated staff person on board. This is a choice to try technology and get broader applications than to have a staff person on board. Commissioner William Kleindienst acknowledged that there is a need for a CMP and a process to retrieve the most accurate information quickly, however, he was concerned with payback, and based on experience on technology advances, what is here now may not be in existence in ten years. He then asked if it was possible to table this item for one month so that staff could provide additional information. Chairman van Haaster noted this item was reviewed by the Committee and this was a unanimous vote. M/S/C (ReeserLowe/Chlebnik) approve the requested allocation of $500,000 of State Transportation Improvement Program funds for the purchase of additional "SMART" Call Boxes on the Congestion Management Program network. Nay: Kleindienst, Clifford 10. TEA 21 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL PROGRAM Shirley Medina stated that staff is in the process of programing the Surface Transportation Program. The discretionary funding was already programed from the 97/98 and 98/99 call and 98 STIP development. Discretionary STP funds have been programed through 2003, therefore, local program funds are available for FYs 99/00-02/03. Staff met with the local agencies to review their list of projects for programming. There were still a few cities who have not submitted projects but will be doing so in the near future. Included in the agenda packet was a chart showing the amount of available funds per agency and the list of projects. Eric Haley stated that the Commission took an action in February approving a $21 million set -aside to hold harmless all of the cities in the County in terms of funds each would RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 8 traditionally receive. This is an itemization of the projects that have been submitted. The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is going to be amended in the next couple of months. Local governments throughout the State of California do not have the best record of spending these funds efficiently so we are bringing this forward to remind the policy leadership that these are dollars that they had dedicated for local projects. In response to Commissioner John Venable's question regarding the time frame to come back to the Commission for the cities who have not submitted, Shirley Medina responded that there was no deadline set. Staff will follow up with the cities to submit their projects. Commissioner Tom Mullen expressed that there should be a deadline and Eric Haley indicated that very few local entities have imposed discipline in terms of this kind of deadline. This would be new policy, it would be staff's intention that each of the six cities that have not allocated their money will get a letter within the next 24 hours indicating that this policy will be debated. There is no federal or state requirement that we do this, but there are political issues mounting about expenditure of funds. Commissioner Doug Sherman stated that this is in the middle of the process and cities such as Desert Hot Springs have gone through many budgetary cuts and staff reductions, thus, needing extra time to develop the list of projects. If the policy is changed adding a time limit, it should be effective the next time around. Commissioner Venable stated and Commissioner Robin Lowe concurred that the problem is that it is all encompassing and to have the deadline in July might be too soon. She supported giving the cities more time and have the Committee review it in August and present it to the Commission in September. Commissioner Jim Smedley asked since the STP period is through 2003 and is predicated on TEA 21 funds if any of the funds could be lost as San Jacinto's Washington D.C.'s lobbyist has advised them that the Senate is attempting to raid transportation funds from the States of New York and California. Eric Haley responded that it relates to the Federal Transit Administration funding support for transit, STP is not affected in any way at all by that debate. RCTC's lobbyist has been advised to join any and all coalitions on our behalf to oppose the California/New York penalty approach that they are taking. Commissioner John Pena requested that a copy of the letter to the cities should be provided to the respected city's city manager and members of the city council. Commissioner Kleindienst stated that the RCTC responsibility is to assist our cities and County. There should be a process in which to change a policy and in that process, allow time necessary to make all of those involved of the change in the policy. M/S/C (Mullen/Clifford) that the Commission: 1) approve the submitted list of projects for TEA 21 Surface Transportation Progral Local Program for FY 99/00- 0203 and include projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program; 2) send a notice to the cities that have not submitted their projects to submit their respective projects for approval by the Commission in September; 3) funds remaining will be reallocated on a computation basis to the cities who have submitted projects; and, 4) that the Budget and Implementation Committee address RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 9 and develop a policy relating to deadlines to insure that CMAQ and STP funds are used to the fullest extent possible. 11. SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ANALYSIS FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager, indicated that Measure A Program sets aside 2 1 /2% of those funds for special plans and programs in the western county that will assist in the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. In response to Commission direction to review how funds are being expended, staff hired AMMA to analyze and provide a report on how all of the services, including public paratransit services in Western Riverside County, were supported with specialized transit funds. An executive summary was included in the agenda packet, a full report is available for review. Heather Menninger informed the Commission that there are five non-profit providers in Western Riverside County receiving Measure A funds. The TRIP Program which is a highly innovative program that was implemented which is a mileage reimbursement program for people who cannot use the public transit at all or are living in parts of the County where there is no public transit available received 15%. The Measure A programs are well distributed across the County. The most important thing that this Measure A Program has done is brought new dollars to the Specialized Transit Program for coverage in the outside areas. The cost effectiveness evaluation did determine that directly operated services have higher costs per trip than the public providers, however, their costs are lower per hour. On the side of the direct outgoing services, there were concerning differences about their definition and the data they are reporting back to the Commission, very fundamental things: hours, trips, and miles are being defined differently. It was found that there are policy and procedural differences across the program that led them to the recommendations as it relates to improvements. They found that people that use dial -a -ride service are extremely appreciative and are utilizing this service for life sustaining purposes, medical, groceries and important personal business. She also noted that the not -for -profit providers are less likely to be ADA certified versus the public services. Heather Menninger continued and reviewed the proposed goals: 1) Respond to ADA basic requirements; recertifying current ADA enrollees and managing demand with training of ADA users to use fixed route services; 2) Carefully administer Measure A discretionary funds to balance specialized transit opportunities and to improve transit services to seniors and non-ADA certified persons; 3) Expand the Measure A philosophy of "leverage" to integrate public and private, fixed route and demand response, salaried and volunteer workers so that different providers are working collaboratively to improve mobility of persons with special needs; and, 4) Develop long term capabilities to address mobility needs of the specialized transit populations. The proposed objectives and work plan elements were: 1) Promote balanced specialized transit opportunities by targeting Measure A contracts geographically and targeting Measure A to support trips/mobility needs not served by public operators; 2) Improve specialized transit services by integrating role of not -for profit operators, capital replacement and specialized transit improvement demonstration projects; 3) Enhance coordination and cooperation by grantsmanship, capacity building training and work with RCTC advisory body; 4) Manage specialized transit demand. Further discussion was held regarding costs of service. Commissioner Tavaglione indicated that he appreciated the report as it provided information needed for analyzing providers. RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 10 Commissioner ReeserLowe concurred with Commissioner Tavaglione and stated this was one of the best reports she had read in a long time. It enabled the City of Hemet and some non -profits in the valley to collaborate on grant funding. MIS/C (ReeserLowe/Tavaglione) approve the Western Riverside County Specialized Transit Strategic Plan as presented. 12. FINDINGS REGARDING MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT SERVICES OPERATED BY FAMILY SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager, explained that last summer when the Commission made the allocations on Measure A Specialized Transit Funds, there was a question regarding possible duplication of services in the Jurupa area since Family Services operates there as well as Dial -A -Ride. At that time, the Commission approved continuation of funding support to Family Services for two vehicles, but they did ask that an in depth review be done of the two services that operated in Jurupa. AMMA, in association with Transportation Planing and Policies, were requested to look more closely at services provided in that area. They found that the two operator serve very similar populations and it appeared that there were similar destinations for that area. The recommendation is to move forward with the original plan to reduce the funding support to Family Service from two vehicles to one vehicle and that we work with Family Services to implement a plan of correction. There seems to be some room for improvement on their policies, recording of data and we need to provide the operators very clear definitions of what we want. Dom Betro, President and CEO of Family Services Association, said that the previous report covered a lot of the items that he wanted to discuss with the Commission. He is before the Commission not so much representing Family Service, who's mission of service he cared equally about, but as an advocate for seniors who will be dramatically impacted by your decision on this matter. It does not matter whether Family Service gets funded for a second bus, what matters is that 450-500 Jurupa seniors per month will not receive transportation services they require. Family Services Measure A funded senior transportation trips are up 35% this year. Utilizing all of vehicles on the road has provided leveraging of resources and maximization of Measure A funding resources beyond anything expected or required by you. Our analysis reveals that Family Services Measure A funded services average senior passengers per hour are 2.7, our overall subsidy per hour is $26.65, which differs a little from the figures that were presented. Overall subsidy per passenger is $8,000.36 and overall subsidy per mile is $1.55. According to the last RCTC report, these were pretty good numbers and they stand up well in comparison to what was just heard. Unfortunately a direct comparative application of such objective data was not used to support the findings and recommendations regarding Jurupa services before you. The report supports findings of duplication, essentially because RTA and the 2nd senior bus operate in the same geographic area. They knew that all along, the issue is that seniors cannot access Dial -A -Ride services for all the reasons that you just heard and that these 450-500 seniors per month riding the 2' FSA bus will not be served by the Dial -A -Ride service contrary to the conclusion of the report. The Commission is aware that seniors get bumped for ADA eligible passengers, in addition senior population in this county is growing and aging putting more pressure on alternative and complimentary approaches to serving the transportation needs of seniors. He has been before the Commission a few times to advocate for seniors, not just in Jurupa but also with regards to communities such Sun City, RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 11 Menifee, and Mead Valley where Family Services also operates senior community centers. The seniors and their transportation needs are very real and they are increasing. The original Measure A Charter, dated 07/13/88, addressed this issue in a section called "Discount Fares and More Transit Services for Seniors and Handicapped". This document states "ways to do this include operating assistance for social service agencies". It goes on to say that the intent of this program is to provide services to those with no other means of transportation. Funding for this program will come from $31 million from specialized transportation. He does not know how it compares County -wide, but in the western county there is approximately $1.25 million allocated for such services. These seniors have no other means of transportation. The resource is extremely modest given the return realized and the visions set out in this chart. Local flexibility and a customer responsive alternative are needed now and into the future in order to meet the needs of life-long tax paying senior citizens of Riverside County. Regardless of the outcome on this matter, I hope that you will continue to look further at the effectiveness of Dial -A -Ride type services in meeting the needs of seniors in relation to other alternatives. He thanked the Commission for their support provided over the years to Family Services and the many seniors served together. I Cathy Bechtel stated that there is a question as to the numbers in reviewing the trip sheet, many of the riders are repeat riders. What needs to be done is to work closely with RTA in coordination and make efforts to certify many of these senior citizens and get them ADA certified so they would have greater opportunity to ride with the Dial -A -Ride. Commissioner Tavaglione asked if there was sufficient time to continue this for thirty days and bring RTA in for collaboration with Family Services and Cathy Bechtel stated that there is currently a contract in place that effective July 1, funding would go to support one vehicle. Staff has talked to Dom Betro and offered to have a meeting with him along with our consultant staff to get the definitions in place by July 1. Commissioner Reeser Lowe indicated that when this item came to the Committee it was pointed out that there were some serious deficiencies and suggested that there be a followup letter. She encouraged members of the Plans and Programs Committee to read the letter in answer to Family Services. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Smedley) approve the suggested improvements for Family Services' Measure A supported service in the Jurupa area with the addition that we convene a meeting with Family Services and RTA to discuss coordination and collaboration between the two agencies to see that this system continues to move smoothly without duplication with only one vehicle being provided and give Family Services the next year to put together the recommendations that have been suggested in the report by AMMA 13. PRESENTATION 13A. STATUS - CETAP ACTIVITIES Mel Placilla, Sverdrup, provided an an update on the progress on the Riverside County Integrated plan. Riverside County population will nearly double in the next twenty years. Job growth will increase at a greater rate than the population, the western counties rate is RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 12 projected to beat that growth as well. Mobility patterns in Riverside County will be changing and in addition to the historical east to west movement pattern, there will be intra-county and intra-Inland Empire commutes and that will become greater in number and put more demand on the transportation system. Riverside County is about 7300 square miles and it led California in job creation in the 1990's. The challenge that Riverside County faces is how to address the projected population while maintaining open space habitat, mobility and land use policies, and that is the purpose behind the Riverside County Integrated Plan. It is a unique three part program which will deal with land use, transportation and habitat conservation. The Plan is designed to allow concurrent implementation to take place as the Plan evolves. There will be a significant outreach program in Riverside County. The Plan will create a multi species habitat conservation plan for the western county, identify transportation corridors and arterials in the western county called CETAP, and update the County's general plan. The County General Plan establishes land use, identifies open space and conservation issues, and has the transportation element which serves the entire county as the transportation plan for the future. There will be a great deal of interface with the cities within the County to assure that the County's arterial highway plan and freeway plan fits with what the cities have planned. The multi species habitat conservation plan will provide protection for 7-100 species. The design of the plan is to have a defensible and implementable habitat conservation point. CETAP has integrated conservation requirements. One of the goals is to not have to talk about mitigation measures in relation to transportation projects, but to design the projects in conformance with the land -use plan and habitat conservation so that we can minimize those things. It needs to affect and reflect the land use of the County, both in the unincorporated areas and within the cities. As part of the Plan, there will be a proposal for multi modal transportation corridors at least one east -west, perhaps from 1-15 to 1-5, and at least one north -south, perhaps from 1-10 to 1-15. This will provide a blueprint for an estimated $3 billion in local transportation funding over the next 20 years. There will be area wide efforts, including developing the models for the CETAP and combining that with the rest of the County so that there is a compatibility between the circulation element on the General Plan and CETAP. The notion of a freeway corridor as is known today will be expanded and will include of a corridor that will allow future growth in terms of movement of people, goods and information and to allow it to grow to serve all of the public as opposed to just certain users of the public. There will be financial scenarios, what could be expected in terms of available funding in future years so that there is a plan in place to move ahead. So the plan will look at corridors and define those corridors that will be analyzed for future stages. They will evaluate the corridors and look at existing and future conditions within the entire network and will be able to do "what if" analysis. They will prepare design and concept reports and Tier I EIR/EIS; strive forr corridors with the design from the ground up to ensure compatibility with habitat and conservation efforts and that conform with the General Plan. All of these decisions are integrated together as opposed to reacting to changes in land use or new corridors being put in place. To their knowledge, CETAP is the only plan in the United States that combines an area -wide planning with corridor specific alternative analysis. It identifies corridors which are compatible with General Plan land uses, habitat conservation and open space efforts. We think that is very unique. By doing this together will provide some efficiencies in the decision making process. It also clears corridors for the right-of-way preservation of purpose, so you have a specific corridor you have that you can begin to preserve. The timeline is 36 months, the first 6 months is a vision process. In that vision process a great deal of outreach will take place starting in about 2-3 weeks throughout the County. Ten to eleven workshops to go out and listen to people within the RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 13 County to understand what their concerns are about land use, habitat conservation and mobility are planned. Information from the workshops will be presented to the Board of Supervisors and RCTC. In addition to those efforts, there will be polling done within Riverside County to understand what the issues are and to make sure that the public meetings are not dominated by special interests. In mid- August, a strategic partner session is planned where the Board of Supervisors and representatives of the Commission will work on the Vision Statement for Riverside County. That Vision Statement will be published and publicized and brought back as another series of workshops throughout the County, and for adoption in October. During that same 6 month period there will also be a lot of technical studies, which have already begun in the transportation and land use areas. In May of next year, they will start to plan development and rolling out specific plans for corridors. Habitat conservation will work a lot sooner than that because of the time pressures, sometime late this year they will start to have some preserve alternatives. The key partners in this program are the County Board of Supervisors, the Commission, Federal Fish and Wildlife and State Department of Fish and Game and really become partners in this process, seeing the validity of doing this process together instead of a piecemeal fashion. Because of the schedule it will be necessary to push the program forward and if consensus of the advisory group is not reached, they will start to push that up to a coordinating group from the advisory groups. Part of the driving of this program is the Endangered Species Act, in Riverside County there are some things that need to be addressed. A couple of weeks ago the federal government made an announcement about programing the Everglades in which they deal with a significant species that are in Riverside County, they have learned that they cannot do these issues one species at a time. All of these will provide framework to address the challenges that the County faces. Commissioner Clifford stated that the County was going to dissolve the RCHCA, the County habitat group and Commissioner Reeser Lowe said that as the Chairperson of the RCHCA, that RCHCA has come to the conclusion that they need to move forward into multi -species, the County has taken the multi -species lead, which they support. They have also brought in, through WRCOG, other jurisdictions in western Riverside County that did not participate in RCHCA. Each has a representative, meet once per month and are working closely with the contractor of the County, which is CVAG and UCR, which is going well. She fully supports what the Supervisors are doing and applaud them for taking the lead because without all of us working together, this can not achieve this. Eric Haley stated that there is an acceleration of the planning process at the Commission and will go on at the same time as CETAP. SCA 3 that Senator Burton is carrying to put the reauthorization of sales tax measure and 17 others will be on the November 2000, ballot. Senate Constitution Amendment roared out committee, it's on the floor. If it continues to progress, by the end of August we will have a 2000 date for our reauthorization by a state-wide vote. That means we will have to have an expenditure plan and a broad outline in within about 10 months. That effort with CETAP and this Commission will be debating the broad outline of where we are going until 2029. Commissioner Smedley asked if the 100,000 acres set aside would be adequate to mitigate the environmentalist concern or will that 100,000 be a growing number to which Commissioner Mullen explained that experience shows that there is never enough. They are working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife services and State Fish and Game to identify appropriate habitat to cover about 1 /3 of all of the species listed in California and there is RCTC Minutes June 2, 1999 Page 14 still no definitive management plan. That has to be developed and how that will be funded. We are not just purchasing habitat, what we are purchasing is open space. The idea is for all of us, this is to indemnify all of the cities within the County. It is General Plan related, which clearly relates to the cities, transportation related - which is not only the corridors but arterials, it is habitat related which affects both the cities and the unincorporated areas. There are several technical committees, one of which will be made up of Public Works Directors so that we have as much input as possible, not only from the public agencies, but also from the private and environmental side. It is important that the Commission be updated every two months. Commissioner Smedley stated that he did not notice any discussion regarding Ontario Airport in the report and it seemed that it would be a driving force for the arterial proposal. Mel Piacilla, Sverdrup, stated that proposed improvements that surround the area will be factored into the transportation modeling so that we understand what is going on and will be able to serve the activity centers in the future. There is a need to make it compatible with some of the regional plans that SCAG has put together. 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT. Eric Haley informed the Commission that Commissioner Kleindienst was elected as Chairman of the Modal Source Review Committee and that Cathy Bechtel has completed and graduated from Leadership Riverside. 15. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR. Due to lack of a quorum, Chairman van Haaster announced that Agenda Item No. 6R, "Quarterly Financial Reports", be pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed back on the agenda next month. 16. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, NatKop Clerk of t'" Boar COMMISSIONERS SIGN IN SHEET RCTC MEETING June 2, 1999 UCR CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE NO --\)(z/e< `/.CG00-Ctti 43I557—l0a() --� ��� tA:o\)A Gvo0c ;.e.,-3 Coate `--�7 � Gay y - 6 Y4 o � ��z-, 1 >.,QN -1 L' /N 7-c) 57/ - j i/<<g AID /- ,ram R4e.l.s.a.e �2._-s-lel Mm -E .K-4 T oil o1N' -14.0.323.8Zeb 44,-/i,k4Z7___7e'l.e-4. gag -7 35-- - l qdD . F,-� y A AVe s -4- /91GrF4,,o varlet./ ?ef' `// .5a0‘ _ - , _ _ / 5 i -_�f e-. -ei4L. Lk OW Ni TA- -Thi)- -777-705e/ `�/SC'j / 2?Yri 7 %/1/AA/ 4J4=1!S 7‘ 0 35/z z5 0 t S//' 4 X/rA ) . 4 2 f-e 4 4 '17110 1-- AI 4 •:, id a 7‘. 0 3o, c) '1, V, 4i c 22 3 aRC-64-77ZS 0/9 771 C 01'641. LA_ ZO -` -70 -03 (-1 Gene G/OIJI^ ‘0r1 efc.I S `.cfhya P L4 �� 67 -.9 Z44i' 7 z?5' ,oHt.► Cih,EBIJIK- GIL/MESA 9®9-79-r-8'9 F3 P.01 G3 1 S s 6 t\I R, V Cb 4 76 4(6, 3 V1.11 �, c av-A Ke, ( 1 ti \ WI VeScir 74,0-3‘06f ( f, - 9 - `( 7e/ -J-fr-(/rtf(trk) th9-1- 04 t4 it 12, i�. tr..f y® 0.- 94-r--.a..1-, n * Signing in is not required ATTENDEES SIGN IN SHEET RCTC MEETING June 2, 1999 UCR CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE NO Wvf2-14 . �Ta.S icA-'5i:.3-S`)Z CAt.T2"- AS -- 45 /1e,hea 1 ..tz_ Lee,v/i¢ 61/s%-ff6---6 3,5 8 777`5 )c-z-60 441,kGrier5 T-S- i ,A. Y ry l.c7,�,4- .S,/Lc ;,., 77/r � 3 t( 3 - `1f-- ;) Dk p DA s k- N tr k [Alk 5 7e L _ iji~ 11 y,1/44,� • -14� 6T6--i GFb6.5",7 -93/9, X!�N 4/v L C J J- t ( V/ L. cCC:..,vi,c.t,,---,1 f.+- 7 G ? - ! `? E / , A - e ly 7((-s 0 /� H( .- s6,-/C * Signing in is not required RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2000 FTA Section 5311 Rural Transportation Program The Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance Program form the Federal Transit Administration, formerly known as Section 18, provides federal operating assistance funds for rural transit operators. These funds are administered by Caltrans and the majority of the funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula. The remaining funds, if sufficient to justify a call for projects, are awarded in a statewide discretionary program by Caltrans for rural capital projects and intercity bus programs. Transit operators in counties where formula funds are fully programmed must submit projects for discretionary funding to Caltrans. In order for grants to be approved, the Commission must develop and approve a Program of Projects. The attached program was prepared using the FY 1998-99 funding level for operations. As with the Section 5307 program (Section 9), the actual apportionments will not be known until after the start of our fiscal year. By programming at what may be a higher level of funding, the operators will be able to apply for maximum funding and avoid delays and additional work to amend programs and grants. FORMULA PROGRAM: The proposed program allocates the estimated $421,946 in formula funds for Riverside County in FY 1999-2000 to RTA (61.7% or $$260,341) and SunLine Transit Agency (38.3% or $161,605). This is the formula that the Commission has used in past years and is based on estimates of rural population. Each operator has planned for the use of Section 5311 operating funds in their Short Range Transit Plan. DISCRETIONARY FUNDS: It is not known at this time whether Caltrans will release a call in FY 2000 for discretionary rural transit funds. Currently, none of our transit operators have planned for the use of Section 5311 capital funds. However, should Caltrans release a call for projects, all transit operators will be contacted about the availability of funds and if they have a project, a request for an amendment to the program of projects will be submitted for the Commission's consideration. PLANS & PROGRAMS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the proposed FY 1999-2000 FTA Section 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County. FORMULA FUNDS * RIVERSIDE COUNTY FTA SECTION 5311 PROGRAM FY 2000 COUNTY RTA SUNLINE (100%) (61.7%) (38.3%) Federal Funds Available: $421,946 $260,341 $161,605 Carryover: $45,206 $27,892 $17,314 Total Funds Available: $467,152 $288,233 $178,919 * Formula funds were programmed at the FY 1999 level for planning purposes. The actual apportionment will be shared by the operators using the above percentages. APPROVED BY RCTC: July 14, 1999 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Unmet Transit Needs Hearing Testimony and Responses Resolution No. 99-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Finding that there are no Unmet Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area" State law requires that prior to making any allocations of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) not directly related to public transit, the Commission must identify the unmet transit needs in the area and determine those that are reasonable to meet. At least one public hearing must be held to solicit comments on unmet transit needs. The only area that this determination of unmet needs is applicable is in the Palo Verde Valley where it is anticipated that not all funds will be needed for transit. In the Western County and Coachella Valley, all available LTF are being used for transit service. The Commission held a public hearing in Blythe on March 4, 1999. Commissioners Wilson and Crain acted as the hearing board. Notice of the hearing was advertised twice in the local newspaper and notices were mailed to social service agencies in the area, the local college, medical facilities, public library, and residents who previously had expressed interest in transit services. We had three (3) people provide comments at the hearing regarding the service needs in the area. Attached is a summary of the comments received. We worked with staff from the City of Blythe as well as the TRIP Program Director to determine what improvements were reasonable to meet based on the projected productivity. The proposals related to connecting service to the VA hospital in Loma Linda appear to be premature at this time based on conversations with Mr. Bill Densmore, Director of Veteran Services for the County of Riverside. A concerted effort will be made by PVVTA and the contractor staff to better inform the public of the TRIP program and its policies. Prior to allocating any Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for street and road purposes, the Commission must adopt by resolution a finding that there are no unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met by existing or proposed service contained in the Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County. The Commission previously adopted a definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet." The definitions are as follows: "Unmet Transit Needs are, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded." "Reasonable to meet shall include the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required farebox ratios." The Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory Council reviewed the service requests and responses at their meeting on May 17. The Committee recommended approval of the responses and the staff recommendation. All persons that provided comments were provided written responses and notified of the CAC meeting and this Commission meeting. PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Reaffirm its definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet"; 2) That based upon a review of requests for services received through the "unmet transit needs" hearing process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, the Commission make a finding that there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley area; 3) That the Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Finding that there are no Unmet Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area." BLYTHE CITY HALL March 4, 1999 Name/Organization FY 99-00 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS Summary of Testimony and Staff Responses Summary of Comments Staff Response Paula Adair Blythe Nursing Care 285 W. Chanslorway Blythe, CA 92225 Needs transportation for the elderly and wheelchair handicapped people to the Coachella Valley for special doctor needs. The TRIP program, which provides reimbursement to volunteer drivers, is currently available and residents could also use Greyhound services to reach the Coachella Valley. PVVTA and the TRIP Director will work to increase awareness of these services. Rhonda -Somerville Blythe Nursing Care 285 W. Chanslorway Blythe, CA 92225 Followed up on what above individual requested. Needs transportation back and forth for our residents to and from the hospitals (in Coachella Valley) for x-rays, check-ups, whatever evaluation is needed there: See response above. Bill Densmore, Director Dept. of Veteran Services County of Riverside 1 153 Spruce St. Riverside, CA 92507 Need transportation from Palo Verde Valley to the Veteran's Administration (VA) Hospital in Loma Linda. RCTC and PVVTA will work jointly with SunLine to attempt to coordinate a link with the Vets Express in order to provide service to the VA hospital. Also, the TRIP program could be used to reach the Coachella Valley. RESOLUTION NO. 99-008 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING A FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA WHEREAS, the Commission has identified the transit needs of residents in the Palo Verde Valley area, including the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and the transit dependent; and WHEREAS, the Commission has held a properly noticed public hearing on March 4, 1999, and solicited written comments, to gather information to assist in identifying unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "Unmet Transit Needs" as, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "reasonable to meet" as including the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required farebox ratios; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 99401 .5, the Commission has consulted with the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council regarding the transit needs of the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the existing public transportation services (dial -a -ride) in the Palo Verde Valley has been completed, and with the planned improvements that will be included in the FY 2000-2006 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan, was found to be adequate to meet the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, the transit dependent and the general public; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves: That the Commission adopts the finding that there are no unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area of Riverside County that are reasonable to meet. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 14th day of July, 1999. Jack F. van Haaster, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Riverside Transit Agency and Regional Commuter Rail At its meeting on June 2, 1999, the Commission approved the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside and the SunLine Transit Agency. The Riverside County (SRTP) covers the three apportionment areas of the county and is comprised of plans for the above five operators, the Riverside Transit Agency, the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, and Commuter Rail. In the development of the Plan, the operators are using the new schedules and format approved by the Commission on January 13, 1999, along with the Productivity Improvement Plan. Consequently, not all of the operators were able to complete their plans in time for submission to the Commission for the June meeting. The Plans for the Riverside Transit Agency and Commuter Rail were reviewed by the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee on June 23, 1999. Lacking a quorum, it was the consensus of the members present that both SRTP's be recommended for approval. Following is a summary of service highlights: Regional Commuter Rail Initially, it was expected that no new service would be possible during FY 1999-00; however, an opportunity has arisen which may allow the addition of a mid -day round trip on the Inland Empire - Orange County Line. The attached memo from rail consultant Carl Schiermeyer defines a proposal for using idle train equipment and available crews to begin such a service augmentation in October, 1999. We are currently working with Metrolink administration to see if the proposal is feasible. Staff will be prepared to brief the Commission on our progress. Other service and funding levels, as well as capital projects for the next fiscal year, are defined in the draft Plan. The Commuter Rail SRTP is supported by the Commission's previous adoption of FY 1999-00 budgets for both RCTC and Metrolink (Southern California Regional Rail Authority). RCTC pays a remarkably small percentage of Metrolink operating and maintenance costs considering that 25 trains stop in Riverside County on weekdays and 9 on Saturdays. The approved allocation to Metrolink for FY2000 is $3.3million, including capital maintenance. Staff is in the process of updating a 7-year rail capital program to reflect recent funding actions by Congress, Amtrak, the California Transportation Commission, and our sister county member agencies. To the extent possible, an updated Metrolink strategic plan will be incorporated into RCTC's program. Staff expects to present a draft of the Rail Capital Program to the Plans & Programs Committee at its August meeting with consideration by the full Commission scheduled for September. Riverside Transit Agency Riverside Transit Agency's SRTP proposes an operating budget of $26,162,141 for FY 2000, an increase of 15.38% over FY 1999. The increase will support a 21 % increase in annual revenue service miles and hours. Increases in operating expenses are attributable to a full year impact of the Comprehensive Operation Analysis service changes implemented in April 1999, expansion of Sunday service effective in January 2000, ADA Intercity and after hours service, fuel costs and inflationary adjustments for goods and services. The capital budget for FY 2000 totals $18,601,000 and includes the following projects: $2,450,000 for the purchase of seven replacement CNG coaches; $1,290,000 for the purchase of eighteen replacement paratransit vehicles; $7,000,000 for the purchase of 20 full-size clean -fueled expansion coaches; $2,000,000 for the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Mobility Management Project; $2,000,000 for the ITS fare collection system; $750,000 for the ITS integration of RTA's essential software systems, and $1,200,000 for the design and installation of a CNG fuel station to be located in Hemet. In addition, $1,171,000 has been budgeted for a variety of miscellaneous items. Financial Assessment Project Cost $41, 784,434 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget LTF, STA, FTA, Measure "A" ..'►:ter:{::::: Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Riverside Transit Agency and Regional Commuter Rail as presented. , Susan Cornelison - ie= midday train memo.doc Page 1 TO: SUSAN CORNELISON FROM: CARL SCHIERMEYER DATE: JUNE 16,1999 , RE: ADDED TRAIN SERVICE ON THE INLAND EMPIRE ORANGE COUNTY LINE Recommendation RCTC should seek to implement an additional round trip on the Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC) line. This new round trip would meet two needs on this line: 1) the need for a midday return train, and 2) the need for an earlier return train from Orange County work locations. Given the relatively low gross cost of this new service (approximately $75,000 for'/. of the year), RCTC should provide 100% of the funding guarantee, offset by passenger revenues. Proposal One of the trains used on the IEOC line is stored in San Bernardino during the midday. The proposal is to use this train to provide an additional round trip during the midday. This train arrives in San Bemardino each weekday morning at 10:45 AM. Currently this train departs for Irvine at 3:17 PM each weekday afternoon, with stops at Riverside at 3:37 PM, La Sierra at 3:47 PM and West Corona at 3:58 PM, arriving in Irvine at 4:46 PM. The new train service would depart San Bernardino at 12:25 PM and arrive in Irvine at 1:45 PM. This train would then reverse directions and depart Irvine at 2:00 PM for an arrival in Riverside at 3:06 PM. The train would reverse directions in Riverside and depart for Irvine at 3:37 PM (as in the current schedule). The net effect of these schedule changes is to provide two round trips between Riverside and Irvine using the same set of equipment that currently provides just a single round trip. Current Train Schedule Proposed New Schedules Depart San Bemardino Depart Riverside Depart La Sierra Depart West Corona Depart Irvine Arrive Riverside 3:17 PM 3:37 PM 3:47 PM 3:58 PM 4:55 PM 5:58 PM 12:25 PM 12:45 PM 3:37 PM 12:55 PM 3:47 PM 1:05 PM 3:58 PM 2:00 PM 4:55 PM 3:06 PM 5:58 PM Rationale For Service Addition There are two principal reasons why this service should be added. The first is that the IEOC line does not offer a completely' balanced menu of schedule choices for its customers. The first IEOC train of the morning arrives at its first Orange County station at Anaheim Canyon at 6:05 AM. Commuters using this train cannot return home from Orange County until 4:33 PM, ten hours after arriving. These schedule choices clearly make the 6:05 AM train a less attractive choice than other schedule options. The relatively low ridership on this 6:05 AM arrival reflects this situation. On the other hand, a midday train departing Irvine at 2:00 PM would arrive in Anaheim Canyon at 2:23 PM, providing a far more attractive .departure time for commuters choosing the earliest morning IEOC train. The second reason supporting this service is that the universal experience of all other Metrolink routes is that the availability of a midday return train appears to provide a comfort level to commuters. Commuters, especially new commuters, are intimidated by the lack of any return trains in the middle of the day. The availability of such service seems to provide an impetus for the growth of the regular peak period trains. In other words, the actual midday train may not in itself generate large ridership numbers but the mere fact that the service is available appears to encourage reluctant commuters to try the basic service. As it is, the IEOC line is the only line in the Metrolink system that does not have a midday return train. And while strong ridership on these midday trains is not necessarily the goal of the midday service, these Other Metrolink midday trains appear to perform quite well. The San Bernardino midday train departs Los Angeles at 1:10 PM and averages 256 riders. The Riverside midday train departs Los Angeles at 1:35 PM and averages 179 riders. The Antelope Valley midday train departs Los Angeles at 1:52 PM and averages 134 riders. The Ventura County train departs Los Angeles at 1:15 PM and averages 75 riders. In conclusion, the addition of another train around the time described above would appear to strengthen the existing train service by providing a matching evening return train to an early morning train which currently has no attractive return train. The midday train would also fill a perceived service gap by providing an early afternoon return train. Cost of the New Service RCTC has asked Metrolink to estimate the cost of providing this new service. The preliminary estimate is that the "raw" cost of the new service would be approximately $100,000 for an entire year. In addition to this "raw" cost, the effect of adding any new service is to re -allocate the total system wide train miles by the amount of miles represented by the new service. The net effect, were such a complete re -allocation of train miles triggered by this new service, would be to increase RCTC's total share of train miles by 7.8% and its total gross costs by $228,500. The "real" new costs are, of course, only $100,000. There is precedent within Metrolink to forego this re -allocation of mileage when service is introduced mid -year. RCTC staff would recommend that RCTC seek such a waiver as a condition of proceeding with this proposal. Susan Come6son - ieoc midday train memo.doc Exclusive RCTC Funding for This Proposal All current operating costs for the IEOC service are shared by the three county agencies served by this line: San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties. The proposal under consideration adds a completely new round trip between Riverside and Orange Counties. The standard procedure would be to split the costs of this new service between these two counties, based upon the miles within each county. The Orange County Transportation Authority is still operating under the effects of the bankruptcy action of several years ago and does not have available funding in the current fiscal year. Given the relatively low- absolute costs for this service and the high potential to more than break even financially, this would appear to be a prudent investment on the part of RCTC to insure the continued growth and health of the IEOC line. Financial Analysis At $100,000 in new costs yearly, the average daily new cost for this service is approximately $400. The current revenue per rider on this line is $4.61. Assuming average revenue of $4.00 per rider, this new service would require only 50 riders on each leg of the round trip to break even. This assessment does not include any new induced ridership resulting from the more attractive travel options. Based upon the experience of all other Metrolink midday services, the prognosis is excellent that the new service would attract at least the 50 riders on each leg of the round trip that is required to fully cover all costs. Furthermore, it is likely that this new service would materially improve the overall attractiveness of the IEOC line and lead to a measurable increase in route patronage of as much as 5-8% within a six month period. SUMMARY At relatively low absolute cost, RCTC can implement an important service expansion to the IEOC line. This service expansion has the potential to fully recover its costs as well as increasing patronage overall on the .line. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUTER RAIL SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE FY 2000 - 2006 June 18, 1999 Draft Riverside County Transportation Commission RCTC Rail Program Introduction The Riverside County Transportation Commission's rail program .consists of planning, programming, advocacy and implementation elements. Railroad corridors represent significant transportation infrastructure in Riverside County. The RCTC studies issues, participates in discussions at the regional state and federal levels, and directs various activities which are related to rail transportation. As directed by Measure A, the local sales tax for transportation, the Commission helped create the infrastructure and institutional umbrella for commuter rail service in Southern California. RCTC is a partner in the Southern California Regional Rail Authority and contributes toward the development and operation of the "Metrolink" commuter rail system. A large part of RCTC's rail program budget supports operations, maintenance of way, capital maintenance, and new capital projects for Metrolink services. Initially, construction of rail corridors, stations and support facilities and acquisition of rolling stock was accomplished through the expenditure of state rail bonds and the dedicated, local sales tax revenues. Some federal capital support was subsequently received in the form of FEMA reimbursements for Northridge earthquake and 1998 El Nino storm damage. More recently, certain capital improvement projects on the system were partially funded by the California's intercity rail program and Amtrak. Metrolink has no operating dollars of its own; all five member agencies, the transportation authorities or commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, must approve SCRRA's annual operating plan and budget, committing to contribute a specific share of operating and capital costs. Currently, Metrolink operating expense is borne entirely by passenger fares, re -collectable payments from freight railroads, interest income, and subsidies from the five member agencies. Because there are significant system -wide overhead expenses, known as "common costs," decisions by each county regarding service levels have the effect of altering the allocation of Common costs among all the counties. Consequently, development of the SCRRA operating plan and budget is an ongoing process. Another major element in the rail program is reflected in RCTC's support services. These include administration, overhead,' operation and maintenance of four rail stations, legislative and regulatory analysis and advocacy, and outside consultant support. A third element consists of rail -related construction projects administered by RCTC and funded through a combination of Measure A local sales tax, state bond revenues and various grants. Construction of two new stations (La Sierra and West Corona), expansion of the downtown Riverside station parking, extension of Riverside layover track, and eastern access to the downtown station were accomplished in FY96. Construction of a southside platform at Downtown Riverside with station track, main line connections and a pedestrian overcrossing, was completed in FY98/99. One important aspect of the project is installation of video surveillance equipment which will eventually link security efforts at all four RCTC-owned stations. Pedestrian overcrossings and surveillance systems at the La Sierra and West Corona have been designed with construction scheduled for FY99/00. The Short Range Transit Plan for Commuter Rail incorporates a variety of activities which support these elements. 1 Commuter Rail System Overview The Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail program is pan of the regional network operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) - operating under the name of Metrolink - a five -county joint powers agency composed of the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura counties. The purpose of the Authority is to manage the development and operation of commuter rail service in the five -county metropolitan area. The service is currently operated under contract by Amtrak. System Planning In accordance with the provisions of SB 1402 (Presley), the SCRRA adopted a regional plan in June 1991, entitled "The Southern California Commuter Rail 1991 Regional System Plan." The report defined a system of eight commuter rail lines connecting the five counties. The plan was amended in Spring 1992 to include an additional route utilizing the Union Pacific right-of-way between Riverside and Los Angeles via Ontario. Four of the planned nine lines would serve Riverside County residents. Prior to the adoption of the regional report and the creation of the SCRRA, RCTC conunissioned several engineering and feasibility studies which were necessary to develop service options and negotiate with the railroads: Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Service: Feasibility Assessment (Nov. 1988) Perris Rail Extension Study (Feb. 1989) RCTC/ATSF Commuter Rail Study (Morrison Knudsen, Dec. 1990) Each of these studies concluded that rail service was technically and financially feasible. The Measure A Transponation Improvement Plan, approved by Riverside County voters in November 1988, identified and committed $100 million for development and implementation of the program. The subsequent passage of similar local sales tax treasures in adjacent counties and statewide rail infrastructure bonds paved the way for construction of a coordinated system. After adoption of the regional plan, the SCRRA and its member agencies reached right-of-way purchase and operating agreements with the Union Pacific Railway (UP) and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (ATSF) Railroad (now Burlington Northern Santa Fe -- BNSF). Through these agreements, today's commuter rail system evolved utilizing freight railroad corridors within Riverside County. In 1995 RCTC commissioned the San Jacinto Branchline Refinement Study which identified possible scenarios for future passenger service between Riverside and Moreno Valley, Perris, Hemet and San Jacinto. Lack of necessary capital and operating funds have delayed service on that corridor indefinitely. With most of the " 1402 System" in place, SCRRA's planning efforts are now focused on future operations and the mid- and long-term capital projects necessary to accommodate anticipated growth. 2 Metrolink Regional System Plan Opened October, 1992 1. Ventura County Line Moorpark to Los Angeles Extended to Oxnard after Northridge earthquake, 1994 2. Santa Clarita Line (also called Antelope Valley Line) Santa Clarita to Los Angeles Extended to Lancaster after Northridge earthquake, 1994 Saturday service added in 1997 3. San Bernardino Line Pomona to Los Angeles Extended to San Bernardino in 1993 Saturday service added in 1995 Opened June, 1993 4. Riverside Line Riverside to Los Angeles via Ontario Opened March. 1994 5. Orange County Line _ Oceanside to Los Angeles Opened October, 1995 Modifications 6. Inland Empire - Orange County Line Riverside to Irvine Extended to San Bernardino, March 1996 Extended some trips to San Juan Capistrano, 1996-98 Riverside to Los Angeles October 1997 Two reverse trains on Riverside Line moved onto Santa Fe route, via Fullerton. Saturday Service October 1998 Extended San Bernardino Line service into Downtown Riverside Opening 2001 or Later 7. Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton (Peak period, peak direction) Opening Post 2001 8. Hemet/San Jacinto to Riverside 9. Redlands to San Bernardino 3 Rail Service Operations The SCRRA operates six commuter rail lines (see system map). Two routes directly serve western Riverside County, with connecting service available to destinations on the other four lines. Metrolink's regular operations are conducted Monday through Friday, averaging 255 days per year. Reduced frequency Saturday service is now also offered on the San Bernardino and Santa Clarita/Antelope Valley lines, and was extended to Downtown Riverside (via San Bernardino) in October. 1998. Trains do not normally operate on the following major holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Since the first three lines opened in October of 1992, the system has experienced tremendous growth with operating levels and ridership greatly exceeding initial projections. Graphs in the Appendix show selected operating statistics for the Metrolink system from FY 92/93 through the present. The figures illustrate the continuing growth and efficiency of Metrolink operations. Projections for the coming fiscal year show the system's average daily ridership will have increased 416% from its first year. Similarly, annual train -miles will have grown by 735 %, while revenue recovery increased 1060% and annual operating subsidy just 186% in the same time period. Subsidy per rider and per passenger mile, however, will have decreased an average of 200%. Service levels available on all routes are by agreement of the counties in which the lines operate, as the effected counties must fund a proportionate share of line operations (direct costs). Consequently, one county's preference for service may not be met if the other impacted counties do not concur. A large portion of the system's Operating Budget is dedicated to Maintenance -of -Way, on -going maintenance of the railroad track, right of way, signals, and grade crossings. The corridors serving Riverside County are owed by private freight railroads, so RCTC's contribution to maintenance -of -way is significantly less than that of the other county agencies. However, passenger service levels on the Riverside County corridors are therefore more constrained by freight operations. Riverside County Commuter Railroad Corridors Route Railroad Corridor Riverside to Los Angeles via Ontario Union Pacific's Los Angeles Subdivision San Bernardino / Riverside to Irvine / San Juan Capistrano BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, OCTA's Olive Branch and San Diego Subdivision Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision Hemet / San Jacinto to Riverside Former ATSF San Jacinto Branch (owned by RCTC, BNSF retains freight rights) 4 Line Descriptions of Routes Within or Serving Riverside County RIVERSEDE LINE Riverside to Los Angeles via Ontario This line extends 58.7 miles between the city of Riverside and the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT) along the Union Pacific (UP) alignment. The route roughly follows the Pomona Freeway corridor (SR 60) through the cities and communities of Pedley, Mira Loma, Ontario, Pomona, West Covina, Walnut, Industry, La Puente, Montebello, and Commerce. Existing stations include Downtown Riverside, Pedley, East Ontario, Industry, Montebello, and the terminal point in downtown Los Angeles. A station at Pomona is currently scheduled for completion in the coming fiscal year. The scheduled peak -direction trip time between downtown Riverside and LAUPT is 75 minutes which includes dwell time at intermediate stations. Running time will increase slightly once the Pomona stop is added to the schedule. The line is jointly funded by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC), the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SanBAG), and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). The route is extended to Glendale and Burbank via timed connections at Los Angeles Union Station. INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY LINE San Bernardino/Riverside to Irvine/San Juan Capistrano This route extends 70.9 miles between the City of San Bernardino in San Bernardino County and Irvine and San Juan Capistrano in Orange County. The line began operating between Riverside and Irvine in October 1995. Extension of service to San Bernardino was accomplished in March 1996, and a single round trip to San Juan Capistrano was added in the November, 1996 schedule. The alignment roughly follows the Riverside Freeway (SR 91) along the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision through Riverside County into Orange County. At a point just west of Lakeview Avenue within.Anaheim, the route branches southward for six miles along the Olive Branchline to Orange, then continues southward along the San Diego Subdivision. One statidn,in San Bernardino County, three stations within Riverside County and five within Orange County now serve the line: San Bernardino, Riverside -Downtown, Riverside -La Sierra, West Corona, Anaheim Canyon, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano. The possibility exists for adding stations in Riverside County on lands owned by the Commission. Potential sites, classified as possible Tier II stations, include Highgrove, central Corona, and Van Buren in Riverside. Within Orange County, the city of Yorba Linda is considering a possible station site, and planning is underway for stations at Tustin and Mission Viejo. The current running time between downtown Riverside and Irvine is approximately 63 minutes. The line is a jointly funded project of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SanBAG), and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Trains are scheduled to connect with Orange County Line trains at the city of Orange for destinations in Los Angeles and San Diego counties. 5 RIVERSIDE - LOS ANGELES via Fullerton This line extends 61.6 miles between Riverside and Downtown Los Angeles. The necessary improvements have been completed, but OCTA (a funding partner on the line) is not yet able to dedicate resources for peak period operations. The alignment roughly follows the Riverside Freeway (SR 91) along the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision through Riverside County to Fullerton in Orange County where it continues northwest to downtown Los Angeles. Existing stations which could be served by this line include Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, West Corona, Fullerton, Norwalk, Commerce and Los Angeles Union Station. A planned station at Buena Park and the potential Yorba Linda station are also along this route. The line is a jointly funded project of three transportation commissions: Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles. The agreement between RCTC and OCTA (adopted Nov. 1992), which provided for two round- trip peak period trains through Fullerton, was modified in 1996 to shift those trips to the Irvine service. Three reverse trains currently operate over this alignment, but, since these trains are primarily equipment moves to accommodate the Riverside and Inland Empire Iines, with very little ridership, this does not constitute actual peak service on the route. The shift does provide, however, limited reverse commute service from Los Angeles and Orange County into Corona and Riverside. HEMET/SAN JACINTO - RIVERSIDE This proposed route extends 38.3 miles between Highgrove and Hemet within Riverside County. The alignment roughly follows the Escondido Expressway (SR 215) to Perris where it veers east, parallel to State Route 74, to Hemet and north to San Jacinto. The line operating costs would be funded solely by the RCTC. The line is currently in very poor condition, consisting of substandard, deteriorated wood ties and 60-year- old jointed rail. A considerable rehabilitation program and full signalization effort will be required prior to implementation of passenger service. The San Jacinto Branch Line Refinement Study (Boyle Engineering, 1995) estimated the capital costs of bringing the line up to commuter rail operating standards and building stations at S101 million. As part of the study, a range of operating alternatives were considered, including whether trains would operate as extensions of regular Metrolink service or be operated by another agency, possibly using an alternative locomotive technology. Conceptual plans envision the line as a feeder service to other Metrolink lines operating from the Downtown Riverside Station. In light of the significant capital, maintenance, and operating costs, RCTC has deferred extensive improvements to the line until additional funding can be secured. (A federal funding demonstration project is currently being considered.) The Commission has programmed some incremental improvements through the CMAQ program and is pursuing rail "new start" funding under the current federal authorization act, TEA-21. 6 Current Service in Riverside County RIVERSIDE LINE Five peak -period round -trips and one off-peak round-trip operate Monday through Friday from Riverside to Los Angeles on the Union Pacific's mainline right of way. Operations on this line began in June, 1993. One reverse -peak round-trip was moved to the Santa Fe alignment via Fullerton and Norwalk to reduce congestion on the Union Pacific route. Daily boardings, which fluctuate seasonally, have averaged around 4,000 since March, 1998. Approximately 43 % of the morning boardings occur at Riverside County's two stations on this line, at Downtown Riverside and Pedley. The entire route is 58 miles in length, and the average trip length per passenger is 44 miles. Connecting transit service in Riverside County is provided by Riverside Transit Agency fixed routes and Orange Blossom Trolley. Current Stations Served: Riverside - Downtown The Pedley Station East Ontario Industry Montebello / Commerce L. A. Union Station Connecting Metrolink service to: Glendale Burbank Burbank Airport San Bernardino Line Santa Clarita Line Ventura Line INLAND 'EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY LINE 4066 Vine Street 6001 Pedley Road 3330 East Francis Street 600 S. Brea Canyon Road 601 800 N. Alameda Street 400 W. Cerritos Avenue 201 N. Front Street 3750 Empire Avenue Three peak -period round-trip trains, an additional evening return train, and one round-trip reverse train now operate Monday through Friday from San Bernardino to Irvine (with one round-trip and one reverse extending to San Juan Capistrano) over lines owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and the Orange County Transportation Authority. Service between Riverside and Orange counties began on October 1, 1995, and was extended to San Bernardino in March, 1996. The third peak round-trip was added in FY97 and the fourth evening return added in FY98. The route is 59 miles long with an average trip length of 35 miles. Boardings have averaged approximately 1,600 per day since March, 1998. Connecting transit in Riverside County is provided by Riverside Transit Agency and Corona Dial -A -Ride. Bus and shuttle connections in Orange County are provided by OCTA, Anaheim Canyon Express, and Brea Van -Go. OCTA does not currently provide transit connections to all trains. The service utilizes Santa Fe's mainline right of way, the "San Bernardino Subdivision," running parallel to Highway 91 and through the Santa Ana Canyon, then continue southwest on the Olive and Orange subdivisions. 7 Stations Served: San Bernardino Riverside - Downtown Riverside La Sierra West Corona Anaheim Canyon Orange Santa Ana Irvine San Juan Capistrano 1204 West 3rd Street 4066 Vine Street 10901 Indiana Avenue 155 S. Auto Center Drive 1039 N. Pacificenter Dr., Anaheim 194 N. Atchison Street 1000 E. Santa Ana Boulevard 15215 Barranca Parkway 26701 Verdugo Street Passengers originating in San Bernardino and Riverside counties may transfer at Orange to northbound Orange County Line trains serving the following stations: Anaheim Stadium 2150 E. Katella Avenue Fullerton 120 E. Santa Fe Avenue Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs 12700 Imperial Highway, Norwalk Commerce 6433 26th Street, City of Commerce L. A. Union Station 800 N. Alameda Street (additional connections at Los Angeles to Burbank, Glendale, and beyond) Passengers may also transfer to southbound Metrolink and Amtrak trains at Orange County stations for destinations in San Diego County. Proposed FY 2000 Service Levels RIVERSIDE LINE Additional Station opening on route FY99/00 Pomona Monday - Friday Service Five peak -period and one off-peak round trips between Riverside and Los Angeles. Saturday Service Nine one-way trips between Riverside and Los Angeles via San Bernardino, with connections to the Antelope Valley Line at L.A. Union Station. As in past years, the Commission may choose to underwrite the costs of special event charter trains on this route. INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY LINE Additional Station opening on route FY99/00 Tustin Possible Additional Station opening Mission Viejo/Laguna Niguel Monday - Friday Service Four peak -period and one off-peak round trips between San Bernardino or Riverside and destinations in Orange County. If equipment scheduling permits, a mid -day round trip may be added in FY99/00. 8 Saturdav/Sunday/Holiday Service No regular weekend service is currently planned. In FY99/00, approximately 30 Summer "Beach Trains" between the Inland Empire and Oceanside will be operated by Metrolink under direct charter to ROTC. Commission addition, the Conission has authorized the charter of special event charter trains operated by Metrolink. A special Thanksgiving Day service might be operated if the technical arrangements can be made. Proposed Future Service Levels FY 2001 - 2006 As previously noted, service levels are negotiated among the SCRRA member agencies. Variables include each county's resources for operations and capital improvements and, for Riverside County's case in particular, restrictions imposed by the host freight railroads. RCTC's preferences for the remaining years of this Plan, which appear to be sustainable under the existing funding formula, are as follows: Monday - Friday Service Riverside Line: Add one round-trip for a total of 14 trains, with additional connections at Los Angeles. Inland Empire - Orange County Line: Add three round -trips for a total of 16 trains. Expand connections to Oceanside and destinations south. Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles: • Continue reverse moves for Riverside Line, adding frequencies if operationally viable. Begin peak period, peak direction service with two round -trips. Weekend Service Two Saturday round -trips Riverside to Los Angeles on Riverside Line. Continue Riverside to San Bernardino Line Saturday Service connections. Seasonal service to San Clemente and Oceanside 9 Regular Weekday Service Levels Total Peak and Off -Peak One -Way Trips Line Current Service FY 00 5 Year 10 Year 20 Year Riverside Line (UP) Riverside - Los Angeles 12 12 14 16 20 Inland Empire - Orange County San Bernardino - Oceanside "' 0 0 2 2 2 San Bernardino - Irvine 6 6 8 10 23 Riverside - San Juan Capistrano 1 1 5 5 0 Riverside - Irvine . * San Bernardino - San Juan Cap. 3 3 1 1 1 Sub -Total 10 10 16 18 26 Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles San Bernardino - Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 8 Riverside - Los Angeles 3 3 6 6 Q Sub -Total 3 3 6 6 8 TOTAL ONE-WAY TRAINS 25 25 36 40 52 "" Service to Oceanside is currently possible by connecting to the Orange County Line. * One mid -day round trip may be added this fiscal year if equipment scheduling permits. Saturday Service Levels Total Off -Peak One -Way Trips Operating Line Current Service FY 2000 FY 2001 Riverside Line Riverside - Los Angeles 0 0 2 San Bernardino Line San Bernardino - Los Angeles Riverside -San Bernardino -Los Angeles 3 9 i 3 9 4 10 Inland Empire - Orange County Line Seasonal Beach Trains (2' (2' 4 Total Off -Peak Saturday One -Way Trains 12 12 22 (2) 1999 Summer Beach Trains operated by Metrolink as charter to RCTC. 10 Fare Structure The SCRRA fare structure is based on a combination of two elements: the base fare and the distance traveled. Metrolink routes are divided into zones of approximately 11 miles. A ticket's price depends on how many zones the passenger travels through from boarding to alighting. All regular tickets and passes include a free one -zone transfer to connecting transit service. Fare Adjustments On October 1, 1998, regular fares increased an average of 4%, the first adjustment since the system began operations in 1992. The Metrolink Board had acted to phase -in a 12 % increase over 3 years. Two subsequent increases of 4 % each are planned, but will only be implemented if necessary following additional public hearings. Passengers who purchase a monthly pass from Riverside to Los Angeles at the current rate ($216), and make 20 round trips per month, are traveling for 9 cents per mile. Ticket Types There are five types of regular Metrolink tickets: One -Way. Good for a single one-way trip from the station where purchased to a selected destination shown on the ticket. There is a $1.00 surcharge on the base fare for the single -ticket purchase. A one-way ticket is valid for three hours from the time of purchase. Round -Trip. The fare is double the one-way ticket, minus $1.00. Travel to the destination station is valid for three hours; the return ticket may be used any time on the day of purchase. Transfer Upgrade. Up to $1.00 discount offered on a one-way or round-trip ticket purchase provided passenger has possession of a valid bus or rail transfer purchased from a connecting transit operator. Ten -Trip Ticket. This ticket is good for 10 one-way trips between two points made within 90 days of purchase. It is significantly reduced in cost as it does not include the surcharge included in the one-way and round-trip tickets. The ticket must be stamped by a validation machine at the designated station prior to boarding the train. More than orie person can use a single ten -trip ticket as long as each person's trip has been validation stamped before boarding. Monthly Pass. The pass is good for unlimited travel during the calendar month between two designated zones, or between two designated stations. Travel beyond the designated stations requires additional fare payment. The cost of a monthly pass is roughly equivalent to 15 round trips. Monthly passes are sold during the last 10 days and first 10 days of every month. Monthly passes must be signed and are nontransferable. Fare Categories and Discounts Adult, age 19 to 64: Full fare during peak periods (see Off -Peak Travel below) Youth, age 6 to 18: Full fare during peak periods (see Off -Peak Travel below) Child under 6 years: One child under six years of age may ride free when accompanied by an adult using a valid ticket. Additional children under six pay full fare during peak hours and youth fare off peak. 11 Elderly. age 65 & over: 50% off at all times. Proof of age required. Disabled, any age: Discounts for Off -Peak Travel Adult, age 19 to 64: Youth, ages 6 to 18: December Monthly Pass Discount 50% off at all times. Acceptable proofs of disability: - DMV placard ID card - Social Security Disability Income card - L.A. County Transit Operators Association ID card - Other transit operator reduced fare ID card 25 % off one-way and round-trip tickets purchased and used during off-peak hours (anytime Saturday, or between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and after 6:55 p.m., Monday through Friday.) 50% off one-way and round-trip tickets purchased and used during off-peak hours (anytime Saturday, or between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and after 6:55 p.m., Monday through Friday.) Pursuant to Authority Board action, Metrolink has offered December monthly passes at a 25 % discount. The proposed FY 99-00 SCRRA Budget anticipates such a discount being available again in 1999. Regular Fare Schedule, Effective Zones One -Way Round -Trip 10-Trip Monthly Pass 1 3.75 6.25 26.00 83.25 2 4.75 8.25 36.50 116.50 3 5•75 10.50 46.75 149.50 4 6.75., 12.50 57.25 183.00 5 7.75 14.50 67.50 216.00 6 8.75 16.75 78.00 249.75 7 9.75 18.75 88.25 283.00 Off Peak Fares, including Saturday Service, reflect a 25% reduction for adults and 50% reduction for youth. Senior/Disabled tickets are 50% of regular fares at all times and are not discounted further for off peak travel. 12 Regular Ticketing Tickets may be purchased from Ticket Vending Machines located at each origin station using cash, credit cards, and certain bank ATM debit cards. All ticket types are also available through the ticket agent at Los Angeles Union Station. Monthly passes may also be purchased by mail. Many commuters purchase monthly passes at their work sites through special arrangements between Metrolink and major employers. Special Ticketing College Students: Participating colleges and universities offer discounted passes to full time students. School Groups: Metrolink offers special rates for school field trips aboard trains having sufficient seating capacity. Advance reservations are required and some restrictions apply. Field trips fares in FY00 will be $3.00 each for students and accompanying adults. Advance Purchase: Large groups may arrange for advance purchase of appropriate one-way or round- trip tickets for a specified day of travel. No further discount. Advance ticketing options are also available for persons with disabilities. Fare Enforcement Passengers traveling without appropriate, valid fare media are subject to citation and fine. Metrolink fares are verified through a modified honor system call "proof of payment." When requested by conductors or law enforcement personnel, passengers must present a valid ticket along with any required proof of age or disability. Metrolink conductors have statutory authority to issues citations and to remove passengers from trains. Not all trains are checked every day, but periodic verification "sweeps" of the system have shown a fare evasion rate of about 1 %. Fare Revenue Approximately 79 % of all SCRRA operating revenues come from fares; most of the balance represents payments from freight railroads to offset Metrolink's "maintenance -of -way" expense for track, signal and right-of-way maintenance on corridors owned by one or more counties. On the Riverside Line, however, virtually all revenue is from fares as RCTC receives no reimbursements from freight railroads. Overall revenue recovery for the system will exceed 50% this year and is projected to be 56% of costs in FY00. 13 COMMUTER RAIL CAPITAL 1999/00 RCTC's capital expenditures to support commuter rail fall into two major categories: A. Projects managed by the SCRRA, funded through a variety of sources. B. Projects administered directly by RCTC. SCRRA CAPITAL 1999/2000 SCRRA New Capital Projects: The Metrolink New Capital Budget for FY 1999/00 totals $36,500,000. There are just two projects in which RCTC has a funding interest, totaling $756,399. Both of these projects are carried over from previous fiscal years, with funds already on deposit at SCRRA. I. Acquisition of Rolling Stock $7,939,863 RCTC share for match: $548,690 2. Purchase 18 new Ticket Machines 870,783 RCTC share: $207,709 RCTC's share of these projects was paid through a refund of state sales tax on rolling stock purchases. SCRRA Capital Maintenance Projects Metrolink's entire Capital Maintenance Budget for FY 1999/00 is $22,295,790 of which $7,448,357 represents ongoing projects. RCTC's share of capitalized maintenance on right-of-way, joint facilities, and rolling stock is $314,649, including the FY1999/00 contribution of $249,619 to be paid by Transportation Development Act funds. FY 2000 - 2006 Until recently, the SCRRA's major capital document was the SB 1402 Plan. With most of those projects completed, the SCRRA is now in the process of creating both a Strategic Plan and a Long Range Capital Plan. Some of the working papers, as well as previous Regional Plan and grant submittals, have been used to generate estimates of annual capital needs and expenditures. 14 APPENDICES TABLE 2 — EXISTING FARE STRUCTURE (Riverside & IEOC Lines) Category PEAK HOURS: Full Fare (Round -Trip) Full Fare (One -Way) Fixed Route $6.25 - $16.75 $3.75 - $9.75 Zone(s)* Elderly Disabled Student (over 18) Transfer (within system) Transfer (other operator) Other Discounts (10 trip) Other Discounts (monthly) 1 Child under 6 w/fare- paying Adult OFF-PEAK HOURS: Fare (Round -Trip) Fare (One -Way) Zone(s)* Elderly Disabled Student (over 18) Transfer (within system) Transfer (other operator) Other Discounts: Youth age 6-18 1-7 $3.00 - $8.50 $3.00 - $8.50 Regular Fare FREE FREE $26.00 - $88.25 $83.25 - $283.00 $4.50 - $12.55 $2.75 - $7.30 1-7 $3.00 - $8.50 $3.00 - $8.50 Off Peak Fare FREE FREE $2.25 - $6.25 RT $1.40 - $3.65 OW DAR (N/A) Changes Proposed None Until FY 01 (+4%) NONE None Until FY 01 (+4%) None Until FY 01 (+4 %) None Until FY 01 (+4 %) NONE NONE None Until FY 01 (+4%) None Until FY 01 (+4%) NONE None Until FY 01 (+4 %) None Until FY 01 (+4%) None Until FY 01 (+4%) NONE NONE None Until FY 01 (+4%) * Trips longer than 7 zones are capped at the 7-zone fare if a continuous ticket can be purchased. RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE 0 Systemwide Data Elements FY 1998 Annual Actual I FY 1999 I FY 1999 I FY 1999 Budget Est. Actual I Variance Unlinked Passengers 6,218,214 7,283,456 6,847,005 436,451 Passenger Miles (000) 272,186.3 259,142.4 235,826.4 23,316.0 Total Train Revenue Hours Total Car Revenue Hours 34,259 178,239 N/A N/A 39,135 223,352 N/A N/A Total Train Revenue Miles Total Car Revenue Miles 1,408,881 5,685,188 1,646,357 N/A 1,596,141 6,449,121 50,216 N/A Total Vehicle Miles N/A N/A N/A N/A Collisions N/A N/A N/A N/A Major Rev Vehicle Sys Failures N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Passenger Complaints N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Rev Veh Trips Scheduled N/A N/A N/A N/A Total On -Time Rev Vehicle Trips N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Operating Expenses $73,707.6 $80,317.0 $77,632.2 $2,684.8 Total Passenger Fare Revenues Total Revenue (+MOVV) $27,072.8 $38,041.8 $30,540.0 $39,561.9 $29,875.5 $39,939.2 $664.5 ($377.3) Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $35,665.8 $40,755.1 $37,693.0 $3,062.1 Performance Indicators Operating Cost/Train Rev Hour Operating Cost/Car Rev Hour $2,151.48 $413.53 N/A N/A $1,983.70 $347.58 N/A N/A Farebox Recovery Ratio Revenue Recovery Ratio 36.7% 51.6% 42.6% 49.3% 38.2% 51.2% 4.4% (1.9%) Subsidy Per Passenger $5.74 $5.60 $5.51 $0.09 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.13 $0.16 $0.16 $0.00 Subsidy Per Train Revenue Hour Subsidy Per Car Revenue Hour $1,041.06 $200.10 N/A N/A $963.15 $168.76 N/A N/A Subsidy Per Train Revenue Mile Subsidy Per Car Revenue Mile $25.31 $6.27 $24.75 N/A $23.62 $5.84 $1.13 N/A Passengers Per Train Rev Hour Passengers Per Car Rev Hour 181.51 34.89 N/A N/A 175.0 30.66 N/A N/A Passengers Per Train Rev Mile Passengers Per Car Rev Mile 4.41 1.09 4.42 N/A 4.29 1.06 0.13 N/A Revenue Miles Between Collisions NIA N/A N/A NIA Trips On -Time N/A N/A N/A N/A Complaints Per 1,000 Passengers N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Miles Between Roadcalls N/A N/A N/A N/A RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE ❑x Fixed Route - Riverside Line Data Elements FY 1998 Annual Actual 1 FY 1999 Budget I FY 1999 1 FY 1999 Est. Actual Variance Unlinked Passengers 931,043 1,127,936 993,735 134,201 Passenger Miles (000) 48,689.1 44,553.5 38,457.6 6,095.9 Total Train Revenue Hours Total Car Revenue Hours 3,427 16,706 N/A N/A 3,671 16,601 N/A N/A Total Train Revenue Miles Total Car Revenue Miles 167,246 792,079 218,317 N/A 173,749 794,563 44,568 N/A Total Vehicle Miles N/A N/A N/A N/A Collisions N/A N/A N/A N/A Major Rev Vehicle Sys Failures N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Passenger Complaints N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Rev Veh Trips Scheduled N/A N/A N/A N/A Total On -Time Rev Vehicle Trips N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Operating Expenses $8,844.2 $10,086.7 $9,849.1 $237.6 Total Passenger Fare Revenues Total Revenue (+MOVV) $4,387.2 $4,912.9 $5,033.4 $5,315.1 $4,500.0 $4,931.0 $533.4 $384.1 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $3,931.3 $4,771.6 $4,918.1 ($146.5) Performance Indicators Operating Cost/Train Rev Hour Operating Cost/Car Rev Hour $2,580.74 $529.40 N/A N/A $2,682.95 $593.28 N/A N/A Farebox Recovery Ratio Revenue Recovery Ratio 49.8% 55.5% 51.1 % 52.7% 46.1 % 49.8% 5.0% 2.9% Subsidy Per Passenger $4.22 $4.23 $4.95 ($0.72) Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.08 $0.11 $0.13 ($0.02) Subsidy Per Train Revenue Hour Subsidy Per Car Revenue Hour $1,147.15 $235.32 N/A N/A $1,339.72 $296.25 N/A N/A Subsidy Per Train Revenue Mile Subsidy Per Car Revenue Mile $23.51 $4.96 $21.86 N/A $28.31 $6.19 ($6.45) N/A Passengers Per Train Rev Hour Passengers Per Car Rev Hour 271.68 55.73 N/A N/A 270.70 59.86 N/A N/A Passengers Per Train Rev Mile Passengers Per Car Rev Mile 5.57 1.18 5.17 N/A 5.72 1.25 (0.55) N/A Revenue Miles Between Collisions NIA N/A N/A N/A Trips On -Time N/A N/A N/A N/A Complaints Per 1,000 Passengers NIA NIA N/A NIA Total Miles Between Roadcalls N/A N/A N/A N/A RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE 0 Fixed Route - Inland Empire - Orange County Line Data Elements FY 1998 1 FY 1999 I FY 1999 I FY 1999 Annual Actual Budget Est. Actual Variance Unlinked Passengers 297,906 437,248 437,325 (77) Passenger Miles (000) 10,170.8 14,604.1 11,897.8 2,706.3 Total Train Revenue Hours Total Car Revenue Hours 3,361 10,406 N/A N/A 3,684 12,734 N/A N/A Total Train Revenue Miles Total Car Revenue Miles 136,679 425,396 165,601 N/A 152,809 528,852 1,279.2 N/A Total Vehicle Miles N/A N/A N/A N/A Collisions N/A N/A N/A N/A Major Rev Vehicle Sys Failures N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Passenger Complaints N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Rev Veh Trips Scheduled N/A N/A N/A N/A Total On -Time Rev Vehicle Trips N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Operating Expenses $6,305.2 $6,440.2 $6,209.0 $2,312.0 Total Passenger Fare Revenues Total Revenue (+MOW) $1,732.5 $2,230.4 $2,018.4 $2,344.5 $2,050.0 $2,477.1 ($31.6) ($132.6) Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $4,074.8 $4,095.7 $3,731.9 $363.8 Performance Indicators Operating Cost/Train Rev Hour Operating Cost/Car Rev Hour $1,875.99 $605.92 N/A N/A $1,685.40 $487.59 N/A N/A Farebox Recovery Ratio Revenue Recovery Ratio 27.5% 35.4% 33.1 % 36.4% 33.9% 39.5% (0.8%) (3.1 %) Subsidy Per Passenger $13.68 $9.37 $8.54 $0.83 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.40 $0.28 $0.31 ($0.03) Subsidy Per Train Revenue Hour Subsidy Per Car Revenue Hour $1,212.38 $391.59 N/A N/A $1,013.00 $293.07 N/A N/A Subsidy Per Train Revenue Mile Subsidy Per Car Revenue Mile $29.81 $9.58 $24.73 N/A $24.42 $7.06 $0.31 N/A Passengers Per Train Rev Hour Passengers Per Car Rev Hour 88.64 28.63 N/A N/A 118.71 34.34 N/A N/A Passengers Per Train Rev Mile Passengers Per Car Rev Mile 2.18 0.70 2.64 N/A 2.86 0.83 (0.22) N/A Revenue Miles Between Collisions N/A N/A N/A NIA % Trips On -Time N/A N/A N/A N/A Complaints Per 1,000 Passengers N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Miles Between Roadcalls N/A N/A N/A N/A RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 5 — PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE — SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS (Page 1 of 2) System Characteristics I FY 1999 Est. Actual I FY 2000 Plan I FY 2001 Plan FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Cars in Service Locomotives in Service 108 27 108 27 Spares: Cars Spares: Locomotives 11 4 11 4 Energy Reserve Fleet Vehicles Unavailable for Service Total Cars Total Locomotives 119 31 119 33* EXPANSION Vehicles to be delivered 28 cars** REPLACEMENT Vehicles to be delivered FINANCIAL DATA Fare Revenues ($000) $39,939.2 $40,997.0 $42,195.0 Operating Costs ($000) $77,632.2 $79,987.6 $81,987.0 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Revenue Miles (000) 1,596.1 1,769.8 1,800.0 Total Miles (000) N/A N/A N/A Train Revenue Hours (000) Car Revenue Hours (000) 39.0 223.0 N/A NIA Total Hours (000) N/A N/A N/A Linked Passengers (000) N/A N/A N/A Unlinked Passengers (000) 6,847,005 7,448,257 7,701,000 Full -Time Equivalent Employees 112.0 143.4 143.4 wo expansion locomotives on- premises and in the process of being certified. **Will be proportionately allocated among peak and spare fleet. RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 5 — PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE (Page 2 of 2) El Systemwide (a) Data Elements FY 1999 Est. FY 2000 Actual Target (N/A) FY 2000 Plan FY 2001 Plan Unlinked Passengers Passenger Miles (000) Train Revenue Hours Car Revenue Hours Train Revenue Miles Car Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles 6,847,005 1,596,141 6,449,121 N/A Total Operating Expenses $77,632,200 Passenger Fare Revenue $39,939,200 Net Operating Expenses Performance Indicators Operating Cost Per Train Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Revenue Recovery Ratio Subsidy Per Passenger Subsidy Per Passenger Mile Subsidy Per Train Hour Subsidy Per Car Hour Subsidy Per Train Mile Subsidy Per Car Mile Passengers Per Train Hour Passengers Per Car Hour $37,693,000 $1,983.70 38.2% 51.2% $5.51 $0.16 $963.15 $168.76 $23.62 $5.84 174.96 30.66 Passengers Per Train Mile 4.29 Passengers Per Car Mile 1.06 (a) FY 2000 Performance Targets apply to systemwide performance only 7,448,257 7,701,000 251,575.2 265,685.0 N/A N/A 1,769,800 1,800,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $79,987,600 $81,987,000 $40,997,000 $42,195,000 $38,990,600 $39,792,000 N/A 44.1 51.6% $5.23 $0.15 $688.33 N/A $22.03 N/A 131.50 N/A 4.21 N/A N/A 44.0% 51.5% $5.17 $0.15 $688.71 N/A $22.11 N/A 133.29 N/A 4.28 N/A RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 6 — SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS — Riverside Line Item ' Description of Characteristics I Service Name Riverside Line Service Type Fixed Route — Commuter Rail Service Area Riverside to Los Angeles # Peak Vehicles Days & Hours of Operation Monday — Friday 4:50am — 7:52pm Service Operated By Metrolink Primary Markets Served Western Riverside County; Some Coachella Valley; San Bernardino County. Service Change Summary None Marketing Plans Target off-peak riders. RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 6 — SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS — Inland Empire — Orange County Line Item I Description of Characteristics Service Name Inland Empire — Orange County Line Service Type Fixed Route — Commuter Rail Service Area Riverside to Irvine (Trips can be extended to Oceanside & Los Angeles & Ventura Counties via transfer.) # Peak Vehicles Days & Hours of Operation Monday — Friday 5:06am — 7:50pm Service Operated By Metrolink Primary Markets Served Western Riverside County; Some Coachella Valley; San Bernardino County. Service Change Summary If logistically possible, add one mid -day round trip using existing equipment and crews. Marketing Plans Target off-peak riders RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 7 — PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY ROUTE (Specify Name): Riverside Line El Fixed Route Data Elements FY 1999 Est. Actual FY 2000 ( FY 2001 Plan Plan Unlinked Passengers 993,735 1,036,000 1,139,000 Passenger Miles 38,457.6 40,093.2 43,900.0 Train Revenue Hours Car Revenue Hours 3,671 16,601 N/A N/A N/A N/A Train Revenue Miles Car Revenue Miles 173,749 794,563 230,614 N/A 230,614 N/A Total Vehicle Miles N/A N/A N/A Total Operating Expenses $9,849.1 $10,025.3 $10,226.0 Passenger Fare Revenue Revenue (+MOVV) $4,500.0 $4,931.0 $4,703.4 $4,943.3 N/A $5,435.0 Net Operating Expenses $4,918.1 $5,082.0 $4,791.0 Performance Indicators Operating Cost/Train Hour Operating Cost/Car Hour $2,682.95 $593.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A Farebox Recovery Ratio Revenue Recovery Ratio 46.1 % 49.8% 47.8% 49.4% N/A 53.15% Subsidy Per Passenger $4.95 $4.91 $4.21 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.13 $0.13 $0.11 Subsidy Per Train Hour Subsidy Per Car Hour $1,339.72 $296.25 N/A N/A N/A N/A Subsidy Per Train Mile Subsidy Per Car Mile $28.31 $6.19 $22.04 N/A $20.77 N/A Passengers/Train Hour Passengers/Car Hour 270.70 59.86 N/A N/A N/A N/A Passengers Per Train Mile Passengers Per Car Mile 5.72 1.25 4.49 N/A 4.94 N/A RCTC Commuter Rail short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 7 — PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY ROUTE (Specify Name): Inland Empire — Orange County Line El Fixed Route Data Elements FY 1999 Est. Actual FY 2000 Plan FY 2001 Plan Unlinked Passengers 437,325 505,050 570,000 Passenger Miles 11,897.8 13,636.4 15,272.0 Train Revenue Hours Car Revenue Hours 3,684 12,734 N/A N/A N/A N/A Train Revenue Miles Car Revenue Miles 152,809 528,852 174,462 N/A 208,000 N/A Total Vehicle Miles N/A N/A N/A Total Operating Expenses $6,209.0 $6,505.7 $6,615.0 Passenger Fare Revenue Revenue (+MOVV) $2,050.0 $2,477.1 $2,328.3 $2,625.2 $2,791.5 $3,000.0 Net Operating Expenses $3,731.9 $3,880.5 $3,615.0 Performance Indicators Operating Cost/Train Hour Operating Cost/Car Hour $1,685.40 $487.59 N/A N/A N/A N/A Farebox Recovery Ratio Revenue Recovery Ratio 33.9% 39.5% 37.3% 40.5% 42.2% 45.35% Subsidy Per Passenger $8.54 $7.68 $6.34 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.31 $0.28 $0.24 Subsidy Per Train Hour Subsidy Per Car Hour $1,013.00 $293.07 N/A N/A N/A N/A Subsidy Per Train Mile Subsidy Per Car Mile $24.42 $7.06 $22.24 N/A $17.38 N/A Passengers/Train Hour Passengers/Car Hour 118.71 34.34 N/A N/A N/A N/A Passengers Per Train Mile Passengers Per Car Mile 2.86 0.83 2.89 N/A 2.74 N/A RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 8 - TRANSIT PROJECTS SCAG FY 2000 - 2006 SRTP/RTIP Project Description Program Expend. Total 40T0F0) FTA FareMeasureASTA IYear I Year I $(000) , I $(000) I V000) Other I $(000) I $(000) I $(000) Pedley Platform Extension 1998/99 1999/00 $300 $300 Acquire or Rehabilitate Rail Cars 1998/99 1999/00 $1,700 $1,700 Overcrossings at West Corona & La Sierra Stations 1998/99 1999/00 $2,854 $2,854 New Start Rail Program of Projects Phase 1 — San Jacinto Branch Line 1998/99 1999/00 $500 $500 LNG Fueled Locomotive Prototype 1998/99 1999/00 $300 $300 Reconstruct & Upgrade Box Springs Grade Rail Corridor to San Jacinto 1998/99 1999/00 $5,488 $5,488 Riverside & IEOC Line Operating Assistance & Maintenance 1998/99 Annual thru 2004/05 $30,009 $30,009 Santa Fe Depot Rehab — Crew Quarters Conversion 1999/00 1999/00 $500 $500 RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 10 — PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES (Riverside & IEOC lines) I FY 1998 I FY 1999 Est. I FY 2000 FY 2001 Financial Elements Actual Actual Plan Plan OPERATING EXPENSE (less depreciation) $15,149,400 $16,058,100 $16,531,000 $16,841,000 OPERATING REVENUES: Prior Carryover LTF 0 0 0 -- 0 -- New LTF Subsidies 4,033,000 3,927,929 4,287,000 4,287,000 FTA Operating Subsidies STA Subsidies Measure A Subsidies 0 0 0 0 Farebox Revenues 6,119,700 6,464,241 7,568,500 8,435,000 Other Operating Other Grant Subsidies OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) - 0 -- CAPITAL EXPENSES CAPITAL REVENUES: Prior Year LTF Grants 0 -- 0 -- Current Year LTF Funds 91,434 255,750 Prior Year FTA Grants Current Year FTA Grants Prior Year STA Funds Current Year STA Funds Other Grant Funds CAPITAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) _ __ - 0 RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 TABLE 11 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT PRIOR AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS Prior Audit Recommendation Action(s) Taken And Results (a) Comply with the TDA definition for employee full-time equivalents when preparing the State Controller Report. Will be incorporated into 1999 State Controller's Report. Implement a performance monitoring system for key indicators for the system and by function. Numerous key indicators reported monthly (e.g., on -time performance, ridership, etc.). Budget for FY 99/00 includes departmental information and will facilitate monitoring during the upcoming fiscal year of performance by department/function. Improve internal reporting systems to allow for budget variance analysis by function on a monthly basis. FY 99/00 budget on cost center basis; reporting formats obtained and under internal final review. This will be fully implemented in this new fiscal year. (a) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. RCTC Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY2000-2006 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget 6.11 Statistical Information Date of Formation August 1991 Form of Government Joint Powers Authority Purpose To plan, design, construct and administer the operation of regional passenger rail lines. Member Agencies Counties Served Population (1997) Route Miles in System 06/04/99, 2:29 PM Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Govemments Ventura County Transportation Commission Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County San Diego County Ventura County Los Angeles County 9,603,291 Orange County 2,722,291 Riverside County 1,441,237 San Bernardino County 1,621,874 San Diego County 2,794,785 Ventura County 730.824 Total Population: 18,914,302 • Los Angeles County 199 Orange County 87 Riverside County 38 San Bemardino County 39 San Diego County 19 Ventura County 34 Total Miles: 416 SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget Route Miles Potentially in System (SB1402 Rev. 1993) Train Equipment Stations Los Angeles County 222 Orange County 115 Riverside County 100 San Bernardino County 68 Ventura County 4 Total Miles: 539 Locomotives 33 Cab Cars 37 Coaches 82 Los Angeles County 22 Orange County 8 Riverside County 4 San Bernardino 7 San Diego County 1 Ventura County 4 Total Stations: 46 Ticket Vending Machines TVMs Installed 96 Validators Installed 117 Ticket Office Machines 3 Installed Highway -Rail Grade Crossings Total Network Grade Crossings 399 Public Crossings 339 Private Crossings 61 SCRRA Maintained Crossings 238 Average Daily Riders Ventura County Line 3,977 (May 1999) Antelope Valley Line 3,964 San Bernardino Line 8,559 Riverside Line 4,126 Orange County Line 5,445 Inland Empire to Orange County 1,741 Burbank Turns 405 Riverside/Fullerton/LA 69 SYSTEM 28,286 06/04/99, 2:29 PM SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget Number of Auto Trips Removed per Day Percent of Freeway Traffic Removed on Parallel Freeways Each Peak Hour Average Commute Trip Length Percent of Riders Formerly Driving Alone Percent of Riders with Downtown Los Angeles Destination 19,173 trips 8.5 percent 34.4 miles 70 percent 70 percent Percent of Ethnic Riders by Line Corridor (Latino, Asian, African -American) San Bernardino Line 53 percent Riverside Line 53 percent Antelope Valley Line 32 percent Ventura County Line 29 percent Orange County Line 29 percent Systemwide 39 percent Source: 1997 State of California Department of Finance Report E5, SCRRA's April 1999 Fact Sheet, May 1999 Ridership, and 1997 SCRRA annual ridership survey 06/04/99, 2:29 PM SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget 2.8 Performance Data Figures 2.1 and 2.2 provide a summary of the FY 1999/00 performance data as projected in the Budget and compares with historical data since 1992. The budget illustrates the continuing growth and efficiency of Metrolink operations. As shown in Figure 2.1, both operating expenses and train miles have increased, but operating expenses have increased at a significantly lower rate. Faze revenues have increased with ridership, but as maintenance -of -way and dispatching revenues have become relatively flat, total revenues are also increasing at a lesser rate. As a result, operating subsidy has fluctuated, between $30.7,million and $40 1 million between FY 1993/94 and FY 1999/00. The significant decrease noted in Figure 2.1 in FY 1996/97 is primarily due to the fact that SCRRA received a refund from the state on payment of sales tax on rolling stock. These funds along with fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects earned interest during the year that was applied to the operating revenues. Several factors contribute to the projected increase in subsidy for FY 1999/00 as compared with the forecast for FY 1998/99: • Train -mules have increased 9.8% • Operating' Expenses have increased 2.7% • Average Weekday Ridership is projected to increase 5.0% • Farebox Revenues are projected to increase 10% • Maintenance -of -Way Revenues are projected to decrease by 0.8% • Dispatching Revenues/Other Revenues are projected to decrease by 33% due to the projection of over $1 million in interest for FY 1998/99 while no interest is included in the FY 1999/00 forecast. 06/04/99, 1:30 PM $90 ? $80 - $70 - $60 - $50 $48.1 $40 - $30 - $20 $18.2 510 - FIGURE 2.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ANNUAL OPERATING DATA - FY 92/93 TO FY 99/00 OPERATING EXPENSE (SMillions) 564.4 $57.4 S68.4 $73.7 S77.9 $80.0 92/93 93/94 94/95 95196 96n17 97199 96/99 99/00 2,000 1,800 1,800 1,400 1,200 1.000 800 600 400 550 - RFVFNIIFS (SMillinnse) $50 540 - $30 - $23.3 320 - 515.4 510 - 5- S3.5 $30.7 S37.7 $38.0 $39.1 $41.0 92913 93,94 04/95 95983 9N97 97918 9969 948o0 $50 - flPFROTING SLIRSI�Y (SMlliierue) $40 - $38.4 $31.9 $30 - 520 - $13.8 $34.3 $30.7 535.7 $38.7 $39.0 510 • 92/93 NM 94915 96/16 96/97 97198 08199 99100 Admits throuoh FY 97/99, Forecast for FY 98/99, Budget for FY 99/00 S• - 92193 9304 04106 115f96 98007 MIS UM 9a00 I:. 978.5 708.0 211.8 1,295.8 ,155.8 1769.8 1611.1 1,405.9 92/93 9364 PUN 96196 9a1a7 97194 99199 9600 FA19FC ($1111llinn!) 30,000 - 25,000 - 20,000 - 15,000 - 10,000 - 5,000 AVFRaPF 11A11 Y RIMPCMIP 28.188 25,700 23,058 21,207 17,261 2.856 5,399 26,851 02/93 93094 94495 9566 98197 Via 96119 IMMO CHARTS002ds,GeneratSrun to 00 614/99, 9:12 AM SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget Figure 2.2 provides the operating statistics. Revenue recovery is calculated as the ratio of total operating revenues over total expenses less rolling stock lease and maintenance -of -way extra- oreinary maintenance 2. Since FY 1995/96 the revenue recovery index has been over 50% and is projected at 51.6% for FY 1999/00. The high of 56.3% in FY 1996/97 reflects the added interest received that year. This index has not increased over the last three years as total revenues are not increasing as fast as expenses. However, in past years, actual revenue recovery ratios have been higher than the budget projection due to contingencies included in the annual budgets as well as interest received on fares and other funds received in advance for operations and capital projects. For example, in FY 1998/99, the revenue recovery is forecast to be 50.5% compared with the budgeted value of 50.3%. Farebox recovery which is calculated as the ratio of fare revenues over total expenses less rolling stock lease, maintenance -of -way extra -ordinary maintenance, and maintenance -of -way revenues. This index has steadily increased to 44.1% projected for FY 1999/00. Operating expense per train -mile is calculated net of extra -ordinary maintenance and has decreased each year and is proj ected to be $44.91 in FY 1999/00. Operating expense per passenger -mile has fluctuated between $0.33 and $0.34 since FY 1995/96 and is projected to be $0.32 in FY 1999/00. Operating subsidy per rider decreased as the system matured. In FY 1996/97 the added interest resulted in the low of $5.22. The projection for FY 1999/00 is $5.34 in operating subsidy per rider. As Metrolink trips are long, a better indication of the efficiency of the system is operating subsidy per passenger -mile. This index has leveled out at $0.16 which is very competitive with other transit properties in the region. 2 Extra -ordinary maintenance covers damages due to vandalism, crossing gate accidents, derailments, fines, storm damage and other expenses as required In years without unusual rainfall or train accidents, about $500,000 has been a reasonable estimate, and this is the level proposed for FY 1999/00. In other years, such as has been experienced in FY 1997/98 with the El Nino storms, the total can easily exceed S3,500,000. In FY 1998/99, the budget for Extra -ordinary Maintenance was set at S1,671,362. 06/04/99, .1:30 PM 70% FIGURE 2.2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY OPERATING STATISTICS - FY 92/93 TO FY 99/00 REVENUE RECOVERY 60°% - 56.3% 50% - 40% .. 32.4% 30% - 20% -21.8% 10°% 50.5% 41.8% 54.8% 50.5% 51.6% 0°% - 92/93 93f94 a+Ns 95/90 9697 97A8 99199 MOO 590 OPERATING EXPENSE /TRAIN BILE $85.86 $80 570 - 67.96 $60 - 550 - 552.41 540 92A3 93A4 9495 9586 99/97 o7/9e 99199 99+00 320 515 $10 55 5- - 92193 5994 9495 95196 991117 OPERATING SUBSIDY/RIDER 07/98 99/99 00180 Actuals to FY 97/98, Forecast for FY 98/99, Budget for FY 99/00 FAREBOX RECOVERY 70% . 80% - 50% . 40% • 30% - 20% - 10% 0% 9243 03194 0495 95/98 99197 97AS 0999 99100 $1.0 $0.5 OPERATING EXPENQEIPASSENGERAILE $0.89 0.44 $0.37=0.33 $0.32 S- 92/93 93194 9995 9998 9997 97199 99199 9900 OPERATING SURBIQYIPABSENGER411E $1.0 $0.5 S 92193 9994 94618 WAG 99A7 97'98 AVAI 99100 8/4/99 912 AM SCRRA FY 1999/00 Budget 2.9 Summary of FY 1999/00 Statistics by Line Table 2.7 provides the estimated operating statistics by line for FY 1999/00 and the calculation of various performance ratios. Revenues and expenses are allocated to lines using formulae described in detail in Sections 6.1 through 6.4. Average trip length for FY 1999/00 is 34.4 miles. This is lower than the 35.6 miles in average trip length from prior years. The shorter trips are due to the opening of new stations such as Montebello and Norwalk. Dependent on ridership and•revenues received for each line, operating statistics vary considerably by line. The Orange County and San Bernardino Lines have the highest revenue recovery and most favorable cost-effectiveness and service efficiency indices as these line have the highest ridership per train and train -mile. The Inland Empire -Orange County and Antelope Valley lines have the lowest revenue recovery and least favorable cost- effectiveness indices as these lines have lower ridership per train. The Ventura County and Antelope Valley lines have the lowest service efficiencies with highest operating costs and subsidy per train -mile. 06/04/99, _1:30 PM au fWQ06aseWp van OWWado-uou pus Owned) u0 Mpw PI01 IP0ongsr+ 201 ss900d09 M spnpy 91900 '901300611 i9gtu9w PcIPNwt4 01 «w 48 401V Pudo 14oW1 19941 00001191 MOW Pug 104 01811019d9lp awl doPMPIM sanumaa (ll :saw • %9' IS %I►P %S Or %L'C9 %►'Br - !Stitt %L Cr %VLSI ' Alarcon' aml9wa %C'LC WV IS %9'Lr - %L'OC %e'LC %/'10 la wo9au0gaoj COZZ! St S£! 16 rr! PULL! rr'CC! WKS e8'££1 retts 90' IPS - - Ulf! LP'L£! ZS'L£! LY'lr! ' 9Y911 r9 S£! door+ ide1/APIdo9u8 (MOH Wf+) row opal; Mop d0 OL SYS r L Le! 6L'LCS LIIPS 00101 OVCr! L►'CPS - - COZS1 r►'LS! SEYS! 9I SS1 L6114 9t BPS (I141/H 0(9041110-041c3 MOH 0/Ns) door+ 01011 / 1003 dO 9199 1pul / WO dO IAON3101di3 301A1139 IC ►1 19'PS OY'PS r9'r1 - 0014 L9 C! OL'rf /alluasssd / 9wj Bay GI OS ►C SS 9L'O! BOOS CVOS - et OS I. YL'0! I105 OM setki ssed/APIagnS LC 99 LS BS CS 1614 - Le'Bf 1 LL'LS 09'e1 wOuassdod/APpgnS O! Br O! SL Of Sala - YY'OS LP'S! LL O! (MNsNI Aramstscru a Mow or•N sin a90wdodoftd / 1do00 dO 69 NS Cl/Zit LS'6! 99'6S - SS'SLS SC Zit CCU 000000I1-110w A00,1010.6011t3 MOH 0µ1) 016000w4 / MO dO 4S3N3A11031j31800 L L66'1£f C'9LC$1 C 6£S'91 r'COL'r! - 9'909'05 S'r9S'£f 6'19e0I1 swae9ax0gu9j 0166'014 S L SZ9'Lf 9996.9S £11.814 - 0 C£6'98 S Z9I'S! S'tee'ZIS (l) *amain' 066'8Cf 991C'19$ 9 099'Cf l'KG'SS S'IPCSf ADA'S °ZOO'S! I'19S'6f - - P141'011 r'LBL'LL1 L L06'e! S09I'6S 9'►S9'L1 fCY9'6i! Wow rv4loopS WOW 0i1419wJOcNP901b 9L9r'6Lf S 6LIOS r'9ln.I! 6C0e0I! - 9 St8'9IS 0'966.ILS 1490'61f (99uafa914911 AwuMuo-agx3 MOMS 000 MO pugauado 9196'61S 1 SOS'S! 0 ZZC'YLS £'SLO'OI! - S'LSO'll! L'690't1S C'196.6I! (MOr+ Asa) oummo 400.3.1)11IIONVNIa s re 0 It 1 9f L'9e L'9 CSC LOC £'re (909111)10091 dyl daV 911'691'l l90'1•11, 1,16'LIC rL9bCL ZOLVO oce'SZe r/I'6►L L£1'rIr Brim Wail S61'SLS'lSC OSe'9C9'C► OLO'tt9'9S 00Z'£60'0r °CCU,/ OPC'66£'9C SL9'r£Z'6Z Ore'9rdeeL Gam iaduassad 991'9Z OS8'l 9£1•S 000'1, MC 00CP OSA 00V9 • d14010PlaARO00119AV L69'00e'L OSeSOS ZrViler' L 000'9£O't Oseb6 009'L9e1 OSZ'LL8 009'eZI'Z sOtMpacerafluaaated :90111iLLY1S imumd do p ..,. };,• rtv • . ....................... 1l1 ...I�.:�i!"'_1`7! ...... .. ............. �n: , +1blltit. .:......:....................... 9 ..:...:.:..:,...:..:.. Al :: ..:.:.......... »r.<. } A' : • ..ytl NNyye�>::::::< �"Z '• •ot:: �. ;a»> • S.. ;•'i,.. yy,� %ilk' .... o. ti x: ,r,: • , ' ' tk" ,i :.• a.. r . 3NI1 A8 SOLLSUAUS Q31O3P021d 00/66611Ad 1390(18 000Z/668I, NV3A 1VOSId A11MOHINV 1IV2111/N0I9321 VIN210A11V3 N213HINOS an UPDATED Riverside Line Monday Through Friday Only Effective May 17, 1999 TO LOS ANGELES 1 1 IMETROUNK AM PM Train Numbers 401 4:50 4D3 5:50. 405 6:20 407 6:55 409 8:20 411 3:10 701 5:41 Riverside -Downtown The Pedley Station 5:01 6:01 6:31 7:06 8:31 3:21 East Ontario 5:10 6:10 6:40 7:15 8:40 3:30 Industry 5:28 6:28 6:58 7:33 8:58 `3:47 , Montebello/Commerce - `5:45 `6:45 `7:15 `7:51 `9:15 `4:04 L.A. Union Station 6a5 — 7:05 7:35 8:10 _ 9:35 , 4:35 7:08 FROM LOS ANGELES AM P [v"i Tram Numbers 700 702 402 404 40(.3 408 410 412 L.A. Union Station 5:45 6:30 1:35 4:10 4:55 5:30 6:00 6:35 Montebello/Commerce 1-1:52 _ `4:27 `5:12 `5:47 `6:17 `6:52 Industry 2:10 _ 4:45 5:30 6:05 _ 6:35 7:10 East Ontario 2:26 5:02 5:47 6:22 6:52 7:27 The Pedley Station V _ `2:37 , `5:13 `5:58 `6:33 `7:03 `7:36 Riverside -Downtown 1r 7:7 8:05 3:00 _ 5:27 6:12 ., 6:47 _ 7:17 7:52 Via Fullerton Line TO LOS ANGELES - PM Train Numbers Riverside -Downtown 701 5`:41 Riverside -La Sierra L5:53 West Corona L6:03 Fullerton , L6:25 Norwalk -Santa Fe Springs ! L8:35 Commerce ! - L.A. Union Station V 7:08 • FROM LOS ANGLES AM Train Numbers L.A.Union Station 700 5:45 702 6:30 Commerce - - Norwalk -Santa Fe Springs + 6:09 6:54 Fullerton i Le:19 17:04 West Corona L6:40 17:25 Riverside -La Sierra ! L8:50 L7:37 Riverside -Downtown I 7:17 8:05 L: Regular stop to wens or Oiscnerge passengers. raw may leave up to two names altered of scrocue. Every effort is made to meet our published schedule. Conditions nay arise wfdktii cause *days that may result in missed connections. Please blow time to transfer between idetrolink trains and other rail and bus carnets. Schwan: and fares are subject to change. Metrdink reserves the right to cancel moony scheduled train service vrithout prior notice or ticket refunds. Meuoiink is not responsible for rides. reguisbons, or fares beyond its own MOM. UPDATED 5/4 Inland Empire- 1( METRpUNK Orange County Line Monday through Friday Service Effective May 17, 1999 TO IRVINEISAN JUAN CAPISTRANO A M. P.M. Train Number 803 5:06 805 5:30 807 6:07 809 • 811 3:17 701 " San Bemardino Riverside -Downtown 5:25 5:49 6:26 •7:34 3:37 5:41 Riverside -La Sierra 5:35 5:59 6:36 7:44 3:47 L5:53 West Corona 5:46 6:10 6:47 7:54 3:58 L6:03 Anaheim Canyon L6:05 L6:29 7:06 8:12 L4:17 Orange '' L6:12 _ L6:36 _ L7:13 , L8:21 L4:24 Santa Ana L6:17 L6:41 L7:18 L8:25 L4:33 Irvine f 6:29 _ 6:54 L7:28 L8:35 4:46 San Juan Capistrano 7:45 8:50 _ RVINEMAN JUAN CAPISTRANO A.M P. fVl. Train Numbers 700** 702** 800 802 804 806 808 San Juan Capistrano 9:05 5:05 Irvine . 9:18 4:10 4:55 5:28 6:18 Santa Ana 9:28 4:21 5:05 5:38 6:30 Orange ' 9:33 4:26 5:10 5:43 r 6:35 Anaheim Canyon L9:40 4:33 - 5:17 5:50 •6:42 West Corona 1, L6:40 L7:25 L9:59 L4:53 L5:37 L6:10 L7:01 Riverside -La Sierra ; 16:50 L7:37 L 10:09 L 5:03 L 5:47 016:20 L 7:11 Riverside -Downtowns 7:17 8:05 L10:20 L5:14 L5:58 L6:31 L7:22 San Bemardino R 1 10:45 ' _ 5:39 _ 6:23 6:56 7:50 L. Regular stop to receive or distlmpt peseangers. Train may Neve up to flue minutes armed of schedule. Trains marked " travel tolhom Los Angeles Sea Riverside Line for more titres and simians. • Every effort is mede to meet our published schedule. Conditions molt arise which Cause delays Viet may result in missed x•nneWons. Please allow rims to transfer between Menai* trains end other red and bus COMM Schedule and tales are :ubhecl to change. McMinn reserves rite right to cancel regularly scheduled train service without fir notroe or ticket refunds.Mebolink is rat responsible for rules. regulations, or bees Oeyatd its own tries. UPDATED 4/29 San Bernardino Line 'crving Riverside Downtown Saturday Service TO LOS ANGELES A.M. 111 METROUNK Effective May 17, 1999 P.M. Train Numbers 381 - 333 9:05 385 1.1:20 387 - 389 3:20 391 5:47 _ Riverside -Downtown San Bernardino 6:50 9:35 11:50 1:25 _ 3:52 6:17 Rialto 6:57 9:42 11:57 1:32 3:59 6:24 Fontana 7:02 9:47 12:03 ' 1:37 4:04 6:29 _ Rancho Cucamonga 7:09 9:55 , 12:10 , 1:44 4:12 6:36 Upland 7:15 ' • 10:01 12:16 1:50 4:19 , 6:42 Montclair 7:20 10:06 - 1:55 4:24 _ 6:47 Claremont _ 7:23 10:09 12:26 1:58 4:27 650 6:54 Pomona 7:27 10:13 _ 12:30 2:02 4:31 Covina 7:36 10:22 12:39 2:11 4:40 7:03 Baldwin Park 7:42 10:28 _ 12A5 2:17 4:46 7:09 El Monte L7:50 L10:36 L'12:53 L2:27 4:54 L7:19 _ Cal State Los Angeles L8:01 L10:46 L1:03 , L2:37 _ L5:04 L7:27 Los Angeles 7 8:15 11:00 1:15 2:51 5:18 7:40 1M LOS ANGELES ain Number Los Angeles A M P M 380 8:30 382 11:30 , 384 1:55 386 1 3:10 388 5:35 390 8:00 Cal State Los Angeles 8:40 11:40 ._ 2:05 3:20 5:45 8:10 El Monte 8:50 11:50 ', 2:15 3:30 5:55 8:20 Baldwin Park 8:59 4............." 11:59 • 2:27 3:39 6:04 8:29 Covina 9:05 12:05 2:33 3:45 6:10 8:35 Pomona 9:14 12:14 ' 4 2:42 3:54 . ' 6:19 8:46 1 Claremont i 9:18 12:18 2:46 3:58 6:23 8:50 Montclair 9:21 I 12:21 2:49 4:01 6:26 8:54 Upland L9:26 _ L12:26 L2:55 L4:07 L6:32 L8:59 Rancho Cucamonga L9:32 L12:32 L3:03 L4:15 16:40 19:05 Fontana L9:40 L12:42 L3:11 L4:23 L6:48 19:14 Rialto f L9:48 L12:50 L3:19 L4:31 L6:56 L9:19 San Bemardino L10:10 L1:12 1 3:33 L4:50 L7:18 , L9:41 Riverside -Downtown L: Regular stop to receive or discharge passengers. Every effort is made to meet our published schedule. connections. Please allow tune to transfer between • 10:35 Tram Rhry Wave Cakilbons 1Aetiolink trains 1:37 NOUS up to flee minutes may arise which puss and other rail and - 5:15 in 7:43 10:06 steed Of tpwtlulti. delays that Trey bus camera. Schedule result missed and twos ere sublect to change. kiebolink reserves the right to circel regularly scheduled train service without prior notice or motet Met/plink is not responsible for rules, regulations, or fares beyond its own Ives. UPDATED 4/29 I IVJS Ol 10N dV1,1 AINfIOJ 3015113418 /a/�' AINOOJ MAID • MOr —, 1 o���`. ,4(1 AINfIOJ ON1021VNIM NVS NV330 31iI dd AlN(IOJ S113ONV S01 v 01' �aus Uo!un Vsol 004 00` \_ . /6' 11 dVIN 1,A31SAS )1N11011.1.31,* � T sausuugeisa O (awl) sap6W s1-uominkamsima aUn km) a6ue10-aydur7 PUeIW aun Alunno *two aufl apisiar aun uuipiewap ueS aun e)PeD elues aun 41m03 einivaA 460 mow;• � 41.01.& AINOOJ VIIMN3A Southern California's Commuter Train System Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties formed the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) in 1991 to develop METROLINK, a regional commuter train system. Trains carry long-distance commuters from outlying communities to centers of employment, such as Burbank, Irvine and downtown Los Angeles. Train service began on three lines and now serves six lines, with a seventh yet to open. By 2000 METROLINK will connect Southern California with more than 450 miles of track and 50 stations, forming the nation's sixth largest commuter train system. Instead of battling rush hour traffic to and from work, ride comfortable, fast, reliable METROLINK trains and turn your commute into a relaxing experience. Lines and Station Locations SAN BERNARDINO LINE Trains run from San Bernardino to Los Angeles, paralleling the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10). The 57-mile commute from San Bernardino to Los Angeles takes 85 minutes. •SAN BERNARDINO •MONTCLAIR •BALDWIN PARK 1204 W. 3rd Street 5091 Richton Street 3825 Downing Avenue *RIALTO •CLAREMONT •EL MONTE 261 S. Palm Avenue 200 W. 1st Street 10925 Railroad Street •FONTANA •POMONA *CAL STATE L.A. 16777 Orange Way 205 Santa Fe Street 5150 State University Drive *RANCHO CUCAMONGA •COVINA *L.A. UNION STATION 11208 Azusa Court 600 N. Citrus Avenue 800 N. Alameda Street *UPLAND 300 East A Street SANTA CIARITA LINE Trains run from Lancaster to Los Angeles, paralleling the A 14) and Gulden State Freeway (I-5). The 76-mile trip takes about 1-3/4 hours. •LANCASTER *SANTA CLARITA 44142 Sierra Highway 22122 Soledad Canyon Rd. •VINCENT GRADE/ACTON •SYLMAR/SAN FERNANDO 550 W. Sierra Highway 2100 Frank Modugno Dr. 1PRINCESSA *BURBANK 19201 Via Princessa 201 N. Front Street ntelope Valley Freeway (State Route •GLENDALE - 400 W. Cerritos Avenue •L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street For more information on Metrolink schedules or fares call 800-371-LINK or visit our website at www.metrolinktrains.com RIVERSIDE LINE: Trains run from Riverside to The 59-mile trip takes 70 m *RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN 4066 Vine Street *THE PEDLEY STATION 6001 Pedley Road VLN111RA COUNTY LINE Trains run from Oxnard tot The 66-mile trip takes 90 m •OXNARD 201 East 4th Street •CAMARILLO 30 Lewis Road •MOORPARK 300 High Street •SIMIVALLEY 5050 Los Angeles Avenue Los Angeles, paralleling the inutes. *EAST ONTARIO 3330 E. Francis Street * INDUSTRY 600 S. Brea Canyon Road Pomona Freeway (60). • MONTEB ELLO/COMMERCE 601 S. Vail Avenue •L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street os Angeles, paralleling the inutes. •CHATSWORTH 21510 Devonshire Street •NORTHRIDGE 8775 Wilbur Avenue •VAN NUYS 7720 Van Nuys Boulevard *BURBANK AIRPORT 3750 Empire Avenue Simi Valley Freeway (118). *BURBANK 201 N. Front Street •GLENDALE 400 W. Cerritos Avenue •LA. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street ORANGE COUNTY LINE Trains run from Oceanside The 87-mile trip takes just •OCEANSIDE 235 S. Tremont Street •SAN CLEMENTE 1850 Avenida Eslacion •SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 26701 Verdugo Street •IRVINE 15215 Barranca Parkway to Los Angeles, paralleling under two hours. * SANTA ANA 1000 E. Santa Ana Blvd. *ORANGE 194 N. Atchison Street * ANAHEIM 2150 E. Katella Avenue •FULLERTON 120 E. Santa Fe Avenue the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). •NORWALK/ SANTA FE SPR. 12700 Imperial Hwy. *COMMERCE 6433 26th Street *LA. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY LINE Trains run from San Bernardino to Irvine, paralleling the Riverside Freeway (91). The 59-mile trip takes just over one hour. •SAN BERNARDINO *WEST CORONA *SANTA ANA 1204 W.3rd Street *RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN 4066 Vine Street •RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA 10901 Indiana Avenue 155 S. Auto Center Drive 1000 E. Santa Ana Blvd. •ANAHEIM CANYON •IRVINE 1039 N. Pacificenter Drive 15215 Barranca Parkway *ORANGE 194 N. Atchison Street RIVERSIDE - FULLERTON - LOS ANGELES A 60-mile line will connect Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton, paralleling the Riverside Freeway (91) and the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). Several new stations will be built in Orange and Riverside counties for this service which is expected to begin in 1998. Travel time to L.A. will be approximately 90 minutes. �'i'IMETROLNK.. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1999-2000 Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Transit In order for the public transit operators to claim Local Transportation Fund (LTF) money for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2000- 2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The Riverside County SRTP for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside and SunLine Transit Agency were reviewed and approved by the Commission at their meeting on June 2, 1999, and the SRTP for Riverside Transit Agency and Commuter Rail are scheduled for review and approval at the July 14, 1999 meeting. The only Plan that has not been approved is the SRTP for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency. A "draft" of the Palo Verde Valley SRTP has been developed by City of Blythe staff, and their Plan should be finalized within the next month. Therefore, no allocation is being made to the PVVTA until their Plan has been approved by the Commission. At the February 10, 1999 Commission meeting, the FY 1999-2000 Local Transportation Funds were apportioned to the three apportionment areas: Western Riverside, Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley area. The apportionments for the three areas were $28,715,811; $7,531,772, and $678,942, respectively. In addition, any apportioned but unclaimed funds in the Western County area will also be available for transit services. The FY 2000 LTF allocations for the transit operators are consistent with the approved SRTP, and the funds allocated are explicitly for the projects as stated in the approved Plans. The allocation for Metrolink also includes the RCTC Operating and Support costs contained in the RCTC budget approved by the Commission at its June 2, 1999 meeting. Carry-over funds used in these calculations are preliminary estimates and may change. Any modifications in fare box revenue, federal grants, Measure A funding, or carry-over funds may require the operator(s) to revise their services to operate within the LTF funding limitations. Financial Assessment Project Cost $35,507,455 Source of Funds Transportation Development Act, Local Transportation Funds ' *i .. " iM . *i . *i *i .,.. , ... ;:. ..z :•:, 0. 0 :::* 0 *., :*i S'.: 0 .:,, ::;: 0: ::::* 0. :k% Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999- 00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for Transit in Riverside County as shown on the attached table. 9Z6`L86`4£4 04 0$ 000`ZES`L4 000'Z£5'LS £LL'OL9'1.£4 1 04 I0$ 1 000`94L'94 LZS` LZ L' 1.4 9Z9`6LL'L94 66/ZZ/90 :21f •spun; V1S Onano papun; leuguial uol;epodsueil Jo; 000'0014 sapnpul , 009`969`1.3 8Z0`£86`944 1V101 A1Nf10O 04 04 0$ 04 1V101 A311VA 30213A OIVd 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 'V l A311VA 3083A OIVd 000'Z094 000'089`41.4 000`SZL'Z$ 000'9SL'Z1,4 1V101 A311VA V113H0V00 000`94L 9$ 000'Z09$ 000 098`4l$ 000'9ZL`Z$ 000`991:Z13 AON3OV 11SNV211 3NIlNf1S 8Z6`994`LZ4 ELL`4Z6173 L3'61.94 83`668`3$ 009`LL8`914 9Z0`9Z017E4 1V101 A1Nf100 N213183M L96'9Z44$ 0$ ££L'£Z£$ 00L'ZGL'4$ 009'4L£$ 009'L£417$ >INI1021131A1 I 009'nl'03 1.4£'990`4Z$ 0$ LPI.'£ZZ'44$ 000'1.90'9LS 1471.'3l'9Z$ AO1s139VlISNV211 allal3Alb 99l'eve L$ Z£Z`ZS£$ 000'09l$ L9£'09L' 1.$ 000'09 l$ L9£'009' l$ .S30IA2i3S 1V103dS 301S2i3AP1 £E£'964$ 009'9911 L90.63 000' L99$ 000'03 000' LS9$ VN0800 000'ZOL$ 000'903 0$ 000'L06$ 000`LO£$ 000'009$ 1NOWf1V39 £L9'944$ 000'EZL$ LZ£'LL$ 000'999$ 000'6$ 000'LL9$ ONINNVB NOIlVa011d i S30N3A3H SaNfld S1S00 S1S00 &MOD 11SNV211 All dll NON a3A0A2121V3 1V101 1V11dV0 ONI1V213d0 2101V213d0 11SNV211 U30N3WW00321 031VWI1S3 031VWI1S3 031VWI1S3 031VWI1S3 031VWI1S3 lISNt�211 210A SNOW/0071V ONn3 NOI LVMOdSNbIIl 1V001 00-6661. AA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Call for Projects The Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (TEA) provides federal funds for transportation related projects that enhance quality -of -life, in or around transportation . facilities. Projects must be over and above required mitigation and must be directly related to the transportation system. There are twelve categories of eligible activities. They are: 1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. 2. Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. 4. Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities. 5. Landscaping and other scenic beautification. 6. Historic preservation. 7. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals). 8. Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails). 9. Control and removal of outdoor advertising. 10. Archaeological planning and research. 1 1 . Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity. 12. Establishment of transportation museums. Approximately $13,404,000 in TEA funds are estimated to be available in Riverside County for the period covered by the 1998 STIP fund estimate, from FY 1998-2004. The final regulations for the program are expected to be released in July 1999. Staff is requesting the Commission's approval to develop and release a Call for Projects to obtain project proposals for this federal program. Organizations may nominate projects, but they must be submitted in partnership with a public agency. The public agency must be willing and able to take responsibility for carrying out and maintaining the project. Generally, TEA funds are for capital improvements, not for planning, maintenance, equipment or operations. The Technical Advisory Committee and staff are recommending the programming of the full six years of funding at this time. Due to the specialized focus of these funds and the fact that procedures and requirements for developing federal -aid projects are substantially more involved in time and money than the requirements for claiming state funds, we are also recommending that the minimum total project cost be set at $250,000. Staff anticipates using the state -developed selection criteria for project evaluations and recommends that the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee be charged with evaluating and scoring proposals and developing a proposed program list for the Commission's consideration. Financial Assessment Project Cost Up to $13,404,000 Source of Funds Federal Transportation Enhancement Activities Program •:::...... :.i..::}:.}•: •:::.:•:: ii•::..:::::::} p .i :: i::t.}: •.}}:: n{ ........ ..........:.:....;.:::.:•::::::.•.•::..:::::.::::::::::::. .......... i:•'.4:i�j'i'r"ii'ii'r':iiiii .i..{.....i .:{.... r.::.i.......................:....}:':C::}:'r,:;::.........{..{............�.........�.}:{;r.}v:.v:.v:.r:.v:.v:.r:.v::.v::: }:{.}:U•}:4;::•i:4:•.v; r::..r:.r:.r:.r:.r:..r:.r:..r:.r:.r:::::::::::::•:y::.r:,.,•::: ... �iii. :: +.::ti:i;:}:i:::Y::::}i::}::ii:'+.}}::}:{4:4:x:•}i:•i}:•}:': };}}}}}:•: i+•::ii}}}:: •}:�}}}:{i.}:�}:{h}}::•}:•i:•: .................. }::::::::::.r::.r:.r, :::.v:.rr.rr.v:.v:.v:.r:.v:.::... ................. ..::.. } . r.. r....: r........... {.}}}::: ••n ;rrww: vv:.v:::::: }:::.v:::nr:::.�?:•} .............. •}}}}}'.};.}v}r•: n..:.:.. r.. r. r..:. •. ................ .r::::: }:::::. is{•:•:•}:w:.}::.}}'::. r. ...... ••Y::::: ;::.} Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) direct staff to develop and release a Call for Projects to obtain proposals under the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program for FY 1998-2004 with a minimum total project amount of $250,000 and 2) designate the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee as the Evaluation Committee. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Reaffirmation of Conformity Findings of the 1998 RTP and RTIP for PM10 Non -attainment Areas At the May 12, 1999 Commission meeting, an item was placed on the agenda regarding a conformity suspension on the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) (Attached). This resulted in keeping transportation projects requiring federal actions or approvals from proceeding. A list of impacted projects in Riverside County was also distributed. We received a memorandum from SCAG (attached) dated June 15, 1999 announcing the reaffirmation of the conformity findings for the 1998 RTP and RTIP. Therefore, all transportation proiects may proceed with any federal approval or actions needed for implementation. BACKGROUND On March 2, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the Environmental Defense Fund which challenged several provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency's 1997 Final Transportation Conformity Rule. The Court made the following three decisions: (1) A project's conformity can no longer be "grandfathered" by completion of the federal environmental approval, (2) Regionally significant projects, regardless of funding source, must be included in air quality conforming plans and programs, and (3) Transportation air quality conformity determinations based on submitted emission budgets which have not been approved by EPA are no longer acceptable. The provision which impacted the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) conformity findings was the use of submitted emission budgets which had not been approved by EPA. In this case, the PM10 emissions budget. Consequently, the conformity determination for the SCAG RTP and RTIP were "suspended" and transportation projects which were non-exempt (capacity enhancements) could not proceed with any necessary federal actions or approvals. SCAG conferred with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and EPA on the process needed to be undertaken to reaffirm the conformity determination and immediately proceeded with the new PM10 emissions tests using build/no-build or less than 1990 level emission tests. The modeling analysis resulted in a finding of conformity and was approved by the SCAG Regional Council on May 11, 1999, and a 30-day public comment period closed on June 11, 1999. Having received no public comments, on June 14, 1999 SCAG reaffirmed the conformity determination. The U.S. Department of Transportation responded on June 15th, accepting the air quality conformity reaffirmation thereby lifting the conformity suspension allowing affected transportation projects to proceed with implementation. PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 9ooL7-3435 t (213) 236-1800 f (213) 236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov Officers: • Preudeam Supervisor Zit. Yuoslaysky. Los Angeles County • Fust Vice President Mayor Ron Bates, Ctn. of Los Alamitos • Second Vice President. Supenasor Kathy Das.Is. San Bernardino County • Immediate Pas, President. Mayo: Bob Bartlett. CO of Monrovia imperial County. Torn V'eysey, imperial County • David Million. El Centro Los Angeles County Yvonne Brathwatte Burke. Los Angels County • Ze. Yaroslaysky, Los Angeles Counts. • Eileen Ansan. Diamond Bar • Bob Butler. Monrovia • Bruce Barrows. Ceeruos • George Bass, Bell • Hal Bernson. Los Angeles • Robe:: Bruesch. Rosemead • Laura Chick. Los Angeles • Gene Darnels. Puamoum • John Ferraro. Los Angeles • Michael Feuer. Los Angeles • Ruth Galante:. Los Angeles • Jaekte Goldberg. Los Angeles • Rap Grabmsia. Long Beach • Garland Hardeman. Inglewood • Dee Hardoon.Torrance • Mike Hernandei, Los Angeles • Nate Holden. Los Angeles • Kenh McCarthy. Downey • Cindy Misokowski. Los Angeles • David Myers. Palmdale • Pam O'Connor. Santa Monaca • Jenny Oropera. Long Beach • Bob }Uric, Redondo Beach • Beaume Prop. Pico Rivera • Mark Ridley -Thomas, Los Angeles • Richard Riordan. Los Angeles • Mareine Shaw. Compton • Rudy Svonmeh. Los Angeles • Paul Talbot. Alhambra • Joel Wachs, Los Angeles • Rita Walters. Los Angeles • Dermas Washburn. Calabasas • Paul Zee. South Pasadena Orange Cowry, Charles Smith. Orange County • Ron Bates. Los Alamitos • Art Brown. Buena Park • Elizabeth Cowan. Costa Mesa • Jan Debay. Newport Beach • Cathryn DeYoung. Laguna Niguel • Rtchard Dnon. Lake Forest • Alit Duke. La Palma • Ike, Perry, Brea Riverside County: James Venable, Riverside Counp • Dick Kelly, Palm Desert • Jan Len. Beaumont • Ron Lovtrsdge. Riverside • Andrea Puga. Corona • Ron Roberts.Temecula San Bernardino County: Kathy Davis. San Bernardino County • Bull Alexander. Rancho Cucamonga • J:m Bagley.Twentynme Palms • David Eshleman, Fontana • Lee Ann Garcia. GrandTerrace • Gwenn Norton -Perry. Ckuno Hills • Ray Rucker, Highland Munrura County: Judy. Mikels. Ventura County • Donna De Paola. San Buenaventura • Andrew Fos. Thousand Oaks •Toni Young. Pon Hueneme Riverside County Transportation Commissiotn Robin Lowe, Hemet Ventura County Transportation Commission: Bill Davis. Simi Valley - Date: To: From: Subject: SCAG Memorandum June 15, 1999 i Transportation Conformity Working Group Modeling Task Force C Members Charles Keynejad, Senior Transportation Analyst (213) 236-1915 keynejad@scag.ca.gov The U.S. DOT Action Reaffwmation of Conformity Findings of the 1998 RTP and the 1998-05 RTIP for PM10 Non -attainment Areas On June 15, 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) reaffirmed the conformity findings for the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 1998-05 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) which had been previously approved on June 9, 1998 and July 31, 1998 respectively. See the attached U.S. DOT letter. Today's conformity reaffirmation was made for PM10 (particulate matter less than ten microns in size) non -attainment areas in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), the Riverside County portion (Coachella Valley) of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), and the San Berardino County portion (excluding the Searles Valley area) of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). This was in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals March 2, 1999 riling (EDF v. EPA), that invalidated the use of submitted budgets for conformity findings and required SCAG and U.S. DOT to re-examine the PM10 emission analysis using an alternative permitted method. This joint action by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration has lifted the conformity suspension from the above noted affected areas of the Region. All sponsor agencies which had been affected by the conformity suspension, may NOW IMPLEMENT PROJECTS from the 1998-05 RTIP. :/FEDReaffimmationJune99 ePremed on Recycled Paper SS9-a/19/99 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. F'FT)FR AT.'t'R ANsrr Ari»STRATTON FEDERAL HIGHWAY &MINISTRATION ME?TRriontITAN OFFICE 201 N. Figueroa Sty, Suite 1460 Los Amities. California 90012 213-202-3930 June 15,1999 Mr. Jose Medina, Director CALTRANS,.1120 N S=et Sacramento, California 95814 IN army REFER To HSC-CA Document # 312 Attention: Federal Resources Branch, Room 3500 for Garland Hagen Dear Mr. Medina: SUBJECT: CONFORMITY DETERMINATION RLAITIRMATTON OF SCAG's 1998 RTP AND 1998/99-2004/05 TIP The U.S. DOT made a determination for the Southern Caiifomia Association of Government's (SCAG) 1998 RTP on June 9, 1998, and the 1998/99-2004/05 RTIP on July 31, 1998. These conformity procedures of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (C.AA.A) as provided within the EPA's final rule un transportation conformity (40 CFR Part 51 and 93), as amended. On March 2,1999, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)1997 Transportation Conformity Rule in response to a suit filed by the Euviiuuiucutal Defense Fend (EDF'). The EDF challenged several provisions of the 1997 Final Rule pursuant to the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA statute prohibits a metropolitan planning organization from approving and the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) from funding any transportation project unless it comas from a regional transportation plan and program that conform to applicable state -level air quality standards.. The Court found that certain challenged provisions of the 1997 Final Rule do not satisfy this requirement and violate tic CAA. As a result of the ruling, all previous conformity determinations that were based on submdtted SIP budgets were suspended (lapsed) until such time that the EPA made an adequacy Sending on the submitted SIP or, the MPO and U.S. DOT reaffirmed the area's prior conformity determination based on a demonstration that the appropriate emissions tests welt satisfied (i.e, the "huild/nn- bwcr' test er the `less than 1990 levels" test). Since the conformity determination of SCAG's 1998 T2TP and IMP was based on budgets for PMt„ that were submitted to U.S. EPA but not yet JUM-16-99 WED 01:06 PM FTA FHWA METRO OF FAX NO. 213 2023961 P. 03 This finding has been coordinated with the regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Sincerely, is/ Ery Poka Sandra A. Rnlmir For For Leslie A. Rogers Jeffrey A. Lindley Regional Administrator Division Administrator Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration CC: SCAG, Mark Pisano SCAG TIP Binder FSTIP Binder FHWA, IIA-CA FHWA, WRC FHWA, HPR-CA, Karen Schmidt FTA, Bob Nom EPA, Sam Agowa Cain ails: Raja Mitwasi, District 7 Federal Resources Branch, Dick Petrie Office of local Propams, Deborah Mali Environmental Division, 'Ake 'Brady and Bob Geiss RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Five Year Capital Improvement Program The City of Beaumont has requested an amendment to their Five Year Capital Improvement Plan to include the projects listed below. These were originally paid with other funds. The City now desires to transfer these expenditures, which are eligible for Measure A funding, to their Measure A fund. Southwest Properties Transportation 4th Street Highway 60 Potrero Blvd. Interchange Willow Springs This transfer will resolve the audit concern that the City had potentially impaired Measure A funds because of a significant deficit in the General Fund. After posting of these expenditures the Measure A cash balance will be virtually depleted. As a general note, the City indicates that their overall financial condition has improved since the 1998 audit report. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revised Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Beaumont. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2000-2004 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Local Streets and Roads The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. To date we have received the required Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation from all the local agencies in the County with the exception of the City of Desert Hot Springs. We have informed city staff that no disbursement of Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents are received and approved by the Commission. Desert Hot Springs has secured contracted Public Works staff as of July 1, 1999 to assist them in developing this Plan as well as other public works needs. Canyon Lake is not required to submit a Five Year Plan because of a prior loan agreement with the Commission. The Cities of Coachella and La Quinta do not receive Measure "A" funds because they do not participate in CVAG's TUMF program. The City of Calimesa is requesting approval of their FY 1999 plan as well as the plans for the FY 2000-2004 time period. Due to staff turnover, they failed to submit the needed paperwork during the fiscal year. All required documentation has now been submitted to allow disbursement of their FY 1999 funds. The five-year Plans for the cities of Beaumont, Blythe, Indio, Moreno Valley and the County were received subsequent to the Budget & Implementation Committee meeting. All Committee members were notified of the submittals and of our recommendation for the Commission's approval of the Plans. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the FY 2000-2004 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans as submitted as well as the City of Calimesa's plan for FY 1999. WESTERN COUNTY PLANS Jun 22 99 12:19p Public Works Engineering 909 922-3141 p.2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT June 22, 1999 046823 CITY of BANNING 99 L. Ramsey SL • P.O. Box 998 • Banning. CA 92220-0998 • (909) 922-3130 • Fax (909) 922-3141 Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: List of Streets Projected to be Repaved in Fiscal Year 2000 Dear Ms. Bechtel: As per your request, I have enclosed a list of bolded and underlined streets that are proposed to be repaved in Fiscal Year 2000 as part of the City of Banning's Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. Please note that these street locations are currently intended to be rehabilitated/ overlaid as part of our Citywide Project. However, they may be revised since the City Council will establish a priority list at the time of the award of the construction contract. In the event that there are changes, I will send you a revised list as soon as it becomes available. It is the intention of the City of Banning to utilize all of the funding through the Measure "A" Program for the upcoming five years for pavement rehabilitation/overlay/heater remix. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me at (909) 922-3130. Sincerely, 0,/ w,, ' it `ath, Ann Marie Loconte Associate Engineer AML Encl. Jun 22 99 12:19p Public Works Engineering 909 922-3141 p- 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2000-2004 Agency: City of Banning Prepared By: Ann Mane Loconte Amended: June 1999 STREET LOCATION - FROM ! TO TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) Apex Ave - South of 11/Wm 18 18 Marian Way - Wilson to Evslyn Dr 14 14 Evelyn Dsive - Marian Way to Leslie Ct 23 23 Lori Way - Eyeiyn to Ramsey 4 4 Clair Ct - NortittaEvelyn_Dl 5 5 JaOan -North to Evelyn Dr 4 4 Beverly Dr - Between Evelyn & Ellen Way 10 I Il n Why - Bekeen Marian Wav & Beverly 7 7 Wendy Ct - Eaaof Marian Way 3 3 Christj- Beverlyjo Dayln 5 5 Leslie- N10 Evelyn 5 5 Davin- Evelyn to Christi 5 5 Lincoln- 8th to 22nd 70 70 Sunset = RR Xjng to Lincoln 30 30 Cherokee-IkkortILof_,Tefferson 6 6 ,Sioux - North oj_Jefferson 6 6 Soboba - Mohawk to Jefferson 6 6 Jefferson- Sunset to Navajo 17 17 Oitytuntilafferion 5 5 Navajo- Lincoln to Jefferson 6 6 Jun 22 99 12:19p Public Works Engineering 909 922-3141 STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) Jacinto View -14th to 16th Street 14 14 Sims- Williams to Nicolet . 13 13 Sunrise - Nicolet to Wilson 25 25 Mohawk- Soboba to Navajo 17 17 Woodland- Lincoln to Westward 18 18 Westward- Sunset to 22nd 30 30 Barbour -12th to 16th Street 13 13 12th St - Westward to Barbour 10 10 16th- Lincoln to Barbour 5 5 4th St - Westward to N/O _Lincoln 29 29 Barbour - 8th St to E/O 4th St 9 9 Summit to East of Allesandro 66 66 Florida - Lincoln to Barbour 14 14 Hermosa - Lincoln to Barbour 14 14 Alola - Livingston to Ramsey 7 7 Lincoln -Florida to Hathaway 60 60 Westward - East of Hathaway 20 20 John St - East of Hargrave & West of Airport entrance 178 178 San Gorgonio - Ramsey to Wilson 50 50 San Gorgonio- Livingston to RR X-ing 4 4 Hibiscus - North of Gilman 11 11 7th St - Wilson to Hoffer 10 10 6th St - Wilson to Hoffer 10 10 Williams - San Gorgonio to 8th St 29 29 Murray- Hays to Nicolet 30 30 Hays - 4th to Allesandro 32 32 Wyte Way - North of Gilman 17 17 Jun 22 99 12:20p Public Works Ensineering 909 922-3141 STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) 12th St - Ramsey to Williams 10 10 Hoffer - Paseo Del Sol to King 10 10 Via Panorama - Wilson to North of Hoffer 15 15 Paseo Del Sol - Wilson to North of Hoffer 17 17 Gilman - Florida to Blanchard 20 20 High - South of Indian School 10 10 Valley - South of Indian School 10 10 Lincoln - 8Th to Florida 90 90 8th St -Lincoln to N/Indian School La 120 120 Valet Way -Westward to south of Fashion Way 5 5 Fashion Way- Valet to Preferred 11 11 Preferred -Fashion Way to Westward _ 6 6 Pombreden Cr-North of Westward 6 6 Jaccard Cr-North of Westward 6 6 Juarez - Lincoln to Barbour 10 10 Sunset - Wilson to North City limits • 18 38 Orchard - South of Barbour 5 5 Highland Spgs - Sun Lakes Blvd. to Brookside 101 101 Gilman- Hibiscus to I lth St. 20 20 1 lth St -Gilman to Hoffer 5 5 Icing St-8th to I lth St 20 20 Kingswell - Wilson to Gilman 20 20 Thompson - Hoffer to Gilman 14 14 Hoffer - E/O Thompson & West of Kingswell 20 20 Gilman -E/O Thompson toW/O Kingswell 20 20 Westward- E/O and W/O Hargrave 5 5 22nd St - Ramsey to S/O Westward 48 48 Jun 22 99 12:20p Public Works Engineering 909 922-3141 p.6 STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) Lovell - S/Westward 5 5 Barbour - San Gorgonio to . Hargrave 38 38 Ramsey- San Gorgonio to Hargrave 35 35 Valmonte- S/O Ramsey 4 4 Reppher Rd -San Gorgonio to Florida St 28 28 Bryant - E/O and W/O San Gorgonio 30 30 Highland Springs- 5th St to South city limits ( East Side) 80 80 Highland Home Rd-S/O Sunlakes Blvd ( West Side) 30 30 22nd St. - Nicolet to Ramsey 30 30 Sun Lakes Blvd.- Highland Springs to Highland Home Rd. 100 100 Williams- 16th to Sunset 130 130 Nicolet- 2nd St. to Sims 95 95 Allen- George to Hoffer 30 30 Williams- Hargrave to Phillips 30 30 Martin- Livingston to Williams 22 22 Allesandro- Ramsey to Williams 15 15 King- 8th to 4th 25 25 6th- Nicolet to Wilson 40 40 George- 6th to San Gorgonio 40 40 Cherry- Nicolet to George 15 15 Plaza- Florida to Hargrave 15 15 4th Street- George to Wilson 15 15 4th Street- 4th Place to Indian School Lane 37 37 Wesley- San Gorgonio to Hargrave 46 46 NOTE: Priority of street location to be paved will be determined by the City Council at the award of the construction contract. L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been prepared in accordance with the directives of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in accordance with the requirements of Measure `A' for funding of street and road projects. Section II of the plan describes the planned projects and provides a detailed budget and schedule for implementation of the Plan. The City of Beaumont is currently in the ongoing process of preparing a Pavement Management Plan (PMP) in accordance with Caltrans requirements. The City has recently completed PMP findings and rehabilitation plans and specifications for a segment of Sixth Street between Viele Avenue and Maple Avenue and is in process of preparing plans and specifications for the segment between Maple Avenue and Highland Springs Avenue. The City has also completed data collection for the Segment of Oak Valley Parkway (Fourteenth Street) between Interstate 10 and Beaumont Avenue. At all times, the City will aggressively pursue the expenditure of Measure `A' funds pursuant to the directives and recommendations of RCTC. IL MEASURE `A' PROJECTS The proposed Measure `A' Projects included in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan are consistent with the recently adopted City ofBeaumont Circulation Element Update. The update was based on an extensive City -funded computer modeling effort in conjunction with the RCTC, Southern California Association of Govemments (SCAG), the Western Riverside Council Of Governments (WRCOG), the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency and neighboring cities. SCAG has found the City of Beaumont's transportation model to be consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) model. The following projects are proposed for Measure A grant funding and local Measure A matching funds as part of the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. • Pavement Management Plan - In Fiscal Year 1994-1995, the City of Beaumont began work on the PMP in accordance with Caltrans requirements. The plan preparation in ongoing and will provide specific engineering recommendations for pavement management and rehabilitation. Preliminary findings of the PMP will be utilized in preparation of improvement plans for rehabilitation of critical sections of Sixth Street and Fourteenth Street. Pavement Management Plans for the fiscal year will be locally funded. • Sixth Street Rehabilitation, Phase I - Sixth Street functions as an arterial highway linking the City of Beaumont, unincorporated areas of the County and the City of Banning to major transportation facilities such as Interstate 10, State Route 60 and State Route 79. Critical sections of the road between Viele Avenue and Maple Avenue require rehabilitation in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Funding will be provided by RCTC STP and Measure A funds matched with local funding from the Beaumont redevelopment Agency. 1 • • • Southwest Properties Transportation System - Several Measure A qualified improvements are planned to be implemented in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 and beyond with local CFD 93-1 and proposed Assessment District No. 98-1 funds including the following proj ects. ► Potrero Boulevard between Desert Lawn Drive and Willow Springs Parkway ► Oak Valley Parkway (Fourteenth Street) rehabilitation between Interstate 10 and Beaumont Avenue including certain flood control facilities on Noble Creek ► Willow Springs Parkway between Potrero Boulevard and Viele Avenue ► Ring Ranch Road between Eighth Street and Oak Valley Parkway ► Oak Valley Drive between Brookside Avenue and Oak Valley Parkway ► Noble Creek Parkway between Brookside Avenue and Oak Valley Parkway ► Brookside Avenue Realignment over Noble Creek ► Viele Avenue Realignment between Fourth Street and Sixth Street Sixth Street Rehabilitation. Phase II - Sixth Street between Highland Springs Avenue and Maple Avenue is a critical east -west arterial highway that parallels Interstate 10. The Sixth Street Rehabilitation Project, Phase II is projected to start construction in Fiscal Year 2000- 2001. Fourteenth Street, Phase II - Fourteenth Street is identified by the Circulation Element as an east -west secondary highway that links Interstate 10 and Highland Springs Avenue, and provides an alternative route to Interstate 10 in terms of local traffic. Fourteenth Street between Beaumont Avenue and Cherry Avenue currently has several substandard improved cross -sections which will be addressed in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Elm Avenue - Elm Avenue is identified by the Circulation Element as a major north -south highway that links Fourteenth Street and Sixth Street and provides an alternative route to Interstate 10 in terms of local traffic. Elm Avenue currently has several substandard intersections with general local streets which will be addressed in Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Highland Springs Avenue - Highland Springs Avenue is identified by the Circulation Element as an arterial highway that connects the eastern portion of Beaumont to Chevy Valley Boulevard and Interstate 10. The west side of Highland Springs Avenue is projected for a rehabilitation program starting in Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The following table provides a summary of the above referenced projects and the confirmed Engineer's Estimate of design, administration and construction costs. The attached Appendix includes the executed copy of the Maintenance of Effort Certification Statement required by the RCTC for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-200 Agency: City of Beaumont Prepared by: Public Works Department Date: June 8,1998 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST 0000's) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000's) 1 Pavement Management Plan Engineering $30,000 $0 2 Southwest Properties Transportation System Road Rehab. & Construt. $14,987,614 $0 3 Sixth Street Rehabilitation, Phase I Road Rehabilitation $558,092 $195,368 4 Sixth Street, Phase II Road Rehabilitation $500,000 $200,000 5 Fourteenth Street, Phase II Road Rehab. & Widening $500,000 $219,000 6 Elm Avenue Road Rehabilitation $202,000 $202,000 7 Highland Springs Avenue Road Rehabilitation $239,000 $239,000 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1993-1999 Agency: City of Calimes* Prepared By: Elroy Kiepke Date: April 1, 1999 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST (8000'S) MEASURE "A" FUNDS (5000'S) 1. Cherry Valley Boulevard - Calimesa Boulevard to City Limit (north aide only) - joint project with County Transportation Department Pavement Rehabilitation - Cold recycle with 2 inch overlay II 12.5 Calimesa Portion 12.5 2. Various Streets City Wide Remove and Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as Required. 150 87.5 000`8I I$ WM d amsrapv 801 OS I pa.nnbag sr ArpanO leas kunIS IIi3 /OVID `itgdag pub anowau apm 43 mails snoprA -Z 01 OZ 4Iu0 u81saa (rdmonA ulAti mroid lutor) iruSN oujeii Mom 7s sluatuanaidtul °Sump') `Supappn uopasialul mg usatugro - peou au►Z AlunoO • I (s•000$) SUNfld „V„ allf1SVETAI 0,0000 ISOO 'WELL gdA.L 1,33f01Id SIENTI/3NIVN 1,0gf02Id 'ON wan 6661 `L aunp:alwa amdam Xopandaad S Jo I aSudusawllsp Jo knaL aua2V 000Z-666I A.►I NMI-9021d SQNif1aI'I` DO'I mod„ aunsvaw NIOISSINII1103 NIOLINDIOdSN VILL AINIII03 a IISII3AI2I 000`LZ1$ spun3 d amsgaw mu, OS OS poimbag sB *Imo `mos kuniS ` ig /MD `.iredag pus anowag apm 43 spoils snug 'Z LL 08I (BdreonA Minn ioafom vim) sluautanaK url a rtimIQ pug &Flamm uomosialul Jo uoptuisuo0 uuojad p enainog esaumvp w Inc% aun kunoO • I 0,0000 SGNf13 „V„ glIf1SVal1i 0,0000 !SOD TVIOI HcIAI ZOHIOIId SIIIAII'UOTAIVAI .LOgfOlId 'ON NIMLI 666I `L aunrwill aidam •Z Aoaia:Ag pandam S 3o Z aSgdgsaumva Jo AnD:Aauagd TOOZ-000Z M NW:19011d SQN I121 rIVDCYI "v" aunsvamI NIOISSLNIAI03 NIOLLV, IMENiVILI, AnsinOO MISIMAIII 000`L £ I $ spuni d a tnsvow ig�o.L OS OS paunbag sg Agin/to `Fos Annis `mg lagiO `ngdam pug mutual apm 43 spans snougA •Z L8 081 (gdmonA q?M iaafoid tutor) wawa/within aSguigiQ pug 2utttap1nn uotiaasiougJo uonoturuoO unopod p.tgnainog gsatu go r pilau gun iilunoO •1 0•000$) SCINfld «d„ aunsvaw (s,000$) ISOO '1VIOI 11AI IO3fO21d S.LI14II'1/31AIV t I3Rf02Id 'ON NMI 666I L aunrawa andam So.ga:Sg paaudaaa S jo £ aSmosatumjo AID:Sauagy ZOOZ-IOOZ A.►I I/MIOO?Ia SUNIII 7V301 “V„ aunsvami NOISSLTAIIA103 NOLLVIHO ISMAILL KLICIOO amsuaitm 000`8171$ spunl amsem ielo.L 8171 OS£ pue iredag `anoutag uongimsul umJci uumS cage looms .nedag pans webg of p enainog note ie0 Z anuaw •I 0.0000 SUNIfId Ar,, 31I1ISVaIN 0,000$) 1S03 'IVIOI gdAs IDafO1Id SIIIAII'I/a1IVN loaf OW 'ON NI311 6661 `L aun f:MO a�datX Loala:Ag paagdaid S 3o p a8udusaumgO jo ,C;D:iaua2v £OOZ-ZOOZ ILI MIN/119011d SUN 91[10001 «V” a2inSValki NOISSIIVIATO0 NOLLVII10dS/01111 INI1OO 301S113AI1I .} ` qua '681 000`65I$ spund d amsgaw I�Io.L V6 OS I paunbgg sB hpan0 `pas Annis `Hu lova `agdag pug anouiag amm Au spans snopgA 'Z S9 OOI saomosag laigm jo IuaunsgdaQ aqi Aq augaa % JOIN B 3o uorouvisur aqi nip iaans webig ABiaanO Z anuany pis of pgog aurl Aiunoo luau pans iurfug • I 0.0000 SCINfld „v„ auns 'ai 0,0000 ,I.S03 ' V10,1, Hcliki IDaf02Id SII IITMAIVN ID f01id 'ON IN31I 6661 `L aunr:apa aldam Ao ga:Sg paaudaad S jo s 32udusauigua 3o S;D:iauagd 1700Z-£00Z 1/d I11V1I9Oxd saxfla '1100z “v„ atlnsva N NIOISSLZNLNOp NIOLLVIII0aNIV2LL A1,141103 affismanni 6l 161,1Et'L► ZOL190111 9Z9'L901 tszvee'Z 96L'IZC1 cot'setc 111011t'► ZZ9'19Y01 S1131SAS Pue 03111113VA Voteimi 1g 1V101 ZOl'£Z6'0I 099'E6Z S9£'Zge 'Or iPL I9L'160'I 060'CO►'1 ZZOSOVI PioWSsl3eb1dPuniWWI tint 11611 06C9 90Z al Men uappuo pue 0npy iol sleualew orpAod o1 060101'11 Cc6'tt ►PM 091161 • SfC 111 9091“ 190111Z 0001:t 00519 CC6111 ► VIII 01'10000 NCI COIL COIL 01I ELS oes ' . 0lN30 AO MM ,, an MLY1 Iti:liiiikkVA", ► of swat 00eir.. 00L11 96t'it 'r ' 6611 9LL'OZ COIL COIL LOS 111 AO aim •'MOM S 06C'LC 001% . 001'11 all - 00011 cote s►► ' :',(.'. 0911 0K'/6 ' 009'01 009'01 OLen'i. 00211C COIL Ott .`5 0117! 06011L 00C11 00L11 0911 OOS'C► t01L Ott •. 111119311 000'I 0091 0021 COIL IC► a::r:. MOO 0011P 0011'9 009'S 000'91:, . 00011 COIL LIP ,,i A3039 OLLYt 000* 000* 1.1111:. ' 000'01 1011 991 ". •w....100 /111$ 00111 00111 99C'Lt , " 9Z91 COIL S►Z + : 3304111 swei0ord S 10 0ulslze puedx• noloI anti oovci Inns, 6t11/ COIL LZZ "': V119311 of luewdoleeep suo!leogddo pus uoasienuoo LPC101 0091 2 0091 99C1I'' ,' 19611 COIL LZZ 1S110 elep vamoose MN compel.' w uo!ps!nAoy 00L'►6C OWLS 0091.9 000101 '' 001191 1001'001T COIL 01t 4'' OAN30 :u00eo11ddd$'i'34PIM�ti3 0001a► 000'00 OLt9 ZCf ,' Ana 0010 r 00►19 '"' t OLC9 LLS "1.AND ULM OCZK 11119 Oti'9C .. ICZ'I91 OLC9 OLC9 PLY ZL9 ''',MOM39 yanhvA Ltll6• 000V/ wow Z►1'96 00011 00011 OLC9 OLCf OLC9 0L9 L99 C99 .� `an WM w' > i,' awn 4-.9110MM luelsAs ielndwoo eplrwlln to 0L119L 000'01 • 00011, 000 091 ' oecte► OLts eta r it 100 uollelueweldull Pue udsoP s•nlotiu loolad 990119 000101 oo0'set 9901161 100eAlnt OLC9 Ott • WPM 7Oija7itiiyjiiliijitrOojjiuovili; 'f .-'' 000'009 0001001 000'009 000'001 C6C9 C6C9 PIP OP► ;.'MOM39 : VI M311 sauuy &PIM sePMxl 0001001 91L119 000'001 91LY►S C6C9 t6t9 LtS LO9 • AO MLA ; i3 MIN ' pieA pla:4mo Apo 0001011 ' 000'001'1 C6C9 691 100 Ieuosmedo Mou a ioJ udsop fops pus Wpm(' ZP11109't 000101 1161091 000101 1001'gunf C6E9 9919 Ott LI► OdN30 A3039 Wir ileLecu03 ugld laeua0 o e e esJ 1 pdn eal)!Pu 99L'9►t't 0091 0001SZ 000'091 991'919 0091 100Z'aun f tSt9 tOP9 69Z OLS 100 > d11 M1M [:;:Pdljuejap—i:ui+j siiiiid 000'01 000111 0001 1011 S►E . 191 9113 ePwied lediotunyy S30dN 4P.M Aldwo3 oL oot'N i 0009 000Z'01.01f 10/8 Ott 03N30 :s,uoj1:0111W;6111113ii ledjijunw S3bdV '1W 5 5133,0W ilivlf37l VIN pop Ai Al Ai Ai Ai Ai ien0Aue3 alga ON Punj (Kona S uald,osea pus 'LIMN loebid lelol B1nlni ►0.EOOZ EO-ZOOZ ZO-IOOZ 10-000Z 000Z-6661 dod db ualaldwo� pebid lw�i Ai laid peleuels3 SN313`1! Pui'S3aill5W 30NId7bf9 0upsl7lso0 noloid • reft1902Id 1N3IY3A021d111 7V1/dY3 Peeodeld 000Zi661 Ai YN01103 d0 All3 CITY OF CORONA FY 1999-2000 Purposed CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Propos, Cost Listing ROADS, BRIDQESAND FREEWAYS Estimated - Prnor FY Fund Project Completion Approp 1999-2000 2000-01 2001.02 2002-03 2003-04 Future Total Project Name and Description Source Fund No. Dale Carryover FY FY FY FY FY FY Cost — eg nioagbankment-$1.111hne nth') Road improvements on Skyline Drive. OAST 222 8933 June, 2000 22,000 22,000 • Efentage Roaq Stnat Im, ptoyemenl4; Location west of Sixth Street, for improvements. OAST `• R/V CO , , 222 7082 June, 2000 35,545 30146 EooligiPerkway-Extension• Preliminary and design engineering for the westerly and easterly extensions of Foothill Parkway. av —nl_ ana0•mensl ili y; Review of paving, curbs, puffers, sidewalks, lighting drainage, alignment, geometry, gradients and safety issues. 1.9s4Ireel R.R. Coming; OAST " '• GAST' :. • q t•., aAeT�' ' r { rflC >i t 4,rt if 222 222 222 7091 7069 7077 June, 2000 Ongoing June, 2000 74,482 7,543 . I ! ` 40,000 40,000 40,000 400,000 71,162 127,643 400,080 • cu Upgrade curbs, gutters and rubberize area. Gas Tax Fund Subtotal 139,570 - 40,000 . - 40,000 440,000 659.570 MEASURE A FUNQ g41'-TrAnt11-51U4Y; MUG Al, y t y, I'. 227 6661 June, 2000 t 17,000 t t - 17,000 To perform • Dial -A -Ride program community awareness end usage study. 1AagnoflaRyenuePeYerriefltltstleblfftatlorr Ontario Avenue to Sixth S►. Initial ,location for street improvements to Railroad crossing near MEASA : 227 5920 June, 2000 6,2111 " 8,2111 Compton Avenue (SIP hided $602.000) Psffsad it Flood gemaue Mitigation; , , •, MEM A ,•,, 227 8923 June, 2000 76,000 • Reconstruction of embankments, erosion control, drainage improvements, etc. FHWAI ', f 76,000 . . Elf , • Yuma Avenue interchange; Off snd on ramps constructed at Yuma and 1.15 freeway. Completion expected in cooperation with the City of Norco. MEAT A r'a i 227 6926 Ongoing 27,901 • ` 1 27,901 L. 4• j. , ,; .., �. • QbiluvdyeYL•!Lt_morovemints; MEA/A : ;, 227 7318 June, 2000 158,793 •r • Chase Drive alignment and crass section construction various locations. Future/Foothill to weal of Main. park. Bath, Pine. Cedar Neighborhood improYergente; Rehab of street work, cabs, pullers, and sidewalks. DAVPD MEM A .. sl � 227 7353 June, 2000 154,160 I • .. 161,7113 1�160 South Mein Street RelgAadna: " r Resurface and add 2 way tum lane from Ontario Ave. to Chars Drive. MEAfA, ? n t 4i.; 227 1320 June, 2000 118,899 ' i i ` 118.0119 b `r Root Pruningyipr rarer; YEAS A .;;„1 k c" ; :44 a • ; • 1 227 7301 Ongoing 4,411 r Y t { 1 I,Nt Root pruning adjacent to city sidewalks, curbs end putters. CITY OF CORONA FY 1199.2000 Proposed CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM • Project Cost Listing ROADS. ARIDC_ES ANQ FREFIVAVS Estimated Prior FY Furl Project Completion Approp. 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Future Total Project Name and Description Source Fund No. Dale Carryover FY FY FY FY FY FY Cost M�451/R_E A FUNQ 1'ONT I , I f'avanarlt_Rehab1111at1o2 for Local $treats; In accordance with 1995 Pavement Evaluation MEMA'v; 227 6921 Ongoing 82,514 500,000 500,000 100,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,082,514 and Maintenance Program. ' ..l y. $trlping ftehablll1gion,• MEAS A 227 7292 Ongoing 44,407 90,000 90,000 ' 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 584,407 Upgrade and maintenance of striping citywide. Oyadook Straat_Wodt; MEAS A , .' } 227 7354 Ongoing 10,000 8,000 5,000 15,000 15,000 18,000 15,000 80,000 Add street name signs and other street work to bid Police and Fire in emergency response. Ha9udacing_and Peyejne Mettsaner, Resudace and repair potholes and miscellaneous MEAS A ' ^ 227 6922 Ongoing 19,169 90,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 490,199 pavement failures.t. y'S Local $ireet i�Vland Gutter _ MEM A ,:. 227 7352 Ongoing 127,322 75,000 i 202,3dening/Curb 22 Lmpro_Ya�nit; Local Street widening and addition dcurbs and gutters, driveways, sidewalks and related work. Including W. 9th � 1, yti �xx b "1 y` t > ° w Street, Vicentia to Buena Vista, and Howard Street. t it;t i; Attend Wldeping; Widen various sections of major arterial to match existing MEASA 227 7081 Ongoing 1d9,167 r i `- toQ0o0 1 100,000 1oo,000 100.000 760,000 1,340,107 IOlanes. W •. x.: - Fnawalf.Brldgesl$mllh AYa,$lorm Oralrtf Reimbursement for construction costs of Maple, Smith and Lincoln Bridges. City cost share is from future MEASA , • 227 7277 June, 2009 532,048 532,646 632,648 532,845 632,648 2.511,920 6,275,140 Measure A Funds. Measure AFund Subtotal 1,037185 1,207,648 1,382648 1,317648 1,317,648 1,317,648 4.056.920 11,637,545 REDEVELOPMENT FUND Sheridan Street Extension; REDEV k x 417 June, 2001 218,000 872,000 1090,000 Acquisition and construction of Sheridan from Rncon to River Road. Ih Redevelopment Fund Subtotal •- 218,000 872.000 - 1,090,000 MiAllft_iNQ_PROACTS EmansA999.. lyemnt Resurfacing OAST . 222 7085 Sept., 1999 72,700 72,700 in the vicinity of American Circle to YEAS A " .' 227 7085 223,975 223,076 Business Center Drive. `` 1 Y. y St:1:S, Bot a MPAUP4al9; Geographic t OAST • I k t:. 222 7087 June, 2000 1,011 `' r , 1,011 Inhxmation System (GIS) for the Cilywide system. YEAS A 'J SEW 7111. r4 'j., 227 440 7087 7087 1,011 1,011 .: n, r 1,011 1,011 BLMD 446 7087 1,011 r, ' • Lott LIDS .'1 » 448 7087 1,011 ;l r` 1,011 A AR WCF ' ' ` 507 7087 1,011 1.011 CITY OF CORONA FY 1912.2000 Proposed CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Project Cost Listing R.OAPS, ONIPG€S AND F/ ECWAY3 Estimated • Prior FY Fund Project Completion Approp, 19.39-2003 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Future Total Project Name and Desorption Source Fund No. Dale Carryover FY FY FY FY FY FY Cost MULTI FUNO.PROI€CIS CONL - - , N4__Q_ZRamO_SR-1►1.@Serial i4k_Pr_ Improved car pool lane. Pending Federal approval. MEAS A ., CA1AQ ._-., DEV PO' ' 227 7302 June, 2000 427,000 - 427,000 NQ}L4RAIMRIR_ 1II LinAn_ rya,; YEAS A ' ' 227 7317 June, 2000 430,000 430,000 Improved car pool lane. Pending Federal approval. CMAQ NOV 4n Rarngikg1el Y ,K1gteY Streit YEAS A ., r 227 7316 June, 2000 335,000 334000 Improved car pool lane Pending Federal approval. CNAQ : 'r. 11[tei4miNottEnt lit RinaLsIOhiasl; OAST 222 6602 June, 2000 Street Improvements near Rimpau and Chase. W1R Of k. 007 9602 150,000 NOr16 _ififi iSSll.6l46biNil loin ang yyld/r Innst; OAST L' ,- 222 7319 Dec., 2000 134,996 •100,000 134 1124 Rehabiklation of Man Street kom 1.91 north to City Limits. 5 y'.. lr 417 7319 - 100,000 . COMDt2n and Ontario Sif9e1 Reailgnplapg MVO it t 227 7293 June, 2002 14,367 360,000 374,367 Traffic study and environmental review for REQMY, , 'fz� 417 7293 i00,000 500,000 • Compton Ave. al Ontario Ave. skeet alignment DEV'D F ' p , • 2 om» - 200,000 Oust - Guner and Sidewalk Reolecern rus �o0ram; 1�1' r,� 1 F Replacement of deteriorated sidewalks and gutter, installation of sidewalks where none exist.. OAST `,.: SEAS A. '' 222 227 6027 6027 Ongoing 3,663 133,306 160,000 160,000 1110,000 160,000 150,000 160,000 103,613 133,304 OENFD • 110 $027 49,814 41,814 M+JorlayemintBihaliij(tattion; OAST ... +';t 222 7080 Ongoing 666,940 • 614,140 Major pavement rehabilitation on citywide streets. MEAS A y'•1 j., 227 7060 70,901 :.;!j " 70,101 L4ca,ions l£h39ulad for Reha4' it 1� i r 1:, h l••, OAST .: } l 222 `' 1,134000 ' _ 1,1 31,000 3rd Street, Promenade, Crests, River Road, North Main and victoria. YEAS A;!.. ; A' _ 227 1 '�1� • 1,600,000 McKinley, Simpson, Raikoad, Rincon, and Rimpau. OAST tr , }' 222 2,000,000 , 2,000,000 YEA: A ; 1., ~4 227 1,000,000 .. • 1,000,000 Partridge, El Sobrante. Lincoln, Sluny Seal Promenade, OAST 222 2,000,000 2,000,000 Green River and Ridgelne. SEAS A . 227 1,000,000 1,000,000 South Man, 10th Slreel, Corydon, Grand, Auto Center OAST ' 222 2,000,000 2,000,000 Skrry Seal Smith, Yuma, Lincoln and Garretson. E9111lYSarl; To be determined based upon the pavement evaluation and management program , as determined by Staff. myeel.salmtglaitSraskProgram; MEAS A ' , j", OAST;'r' '; 227 222 TOTS Ongoing 169 ' 400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1.000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 • 400169 This is anticipated to be an annual preventative program for city streets. obeys and parking lots. MEAS A 1 t,r,,' rX {:r 227 7076 12,460 ' +, r4' a,, '�;, 4. 600,000 500,000 _ 500,000 500.000 . 300.000 2,312,430 23 9Z It{'lfl 00119 :•s 1 i):: r i t .; 000 K ; 000'09 r, : � ;: J 000% (OIL OOP'S IOW "'PO lwAd Ioel OupeuO ztOL root f * or► .: Q b t K �� : . x s ; i I';4� f �" 0R71i i '� . : ;'• . MOW •slouds aWJs CI 31 luerows AOJoup of lueosefJutou wOJf uo!tJgAuoo moor pool uaw sswo3 AOJeu3 s!urol!leo of pear to weurAedou `;i�u6i$ 31-1 1'O'3'1 Pi8 Istuis uefy Opole spuds pro 'era SZ anMeu 'suds eumJ INJes Pug siUN Amps Ns dwgoy Apo xxn lnalenom suo!1eo01 snouvA re solver as!w &MOSS Pup redeti aaliiiOiA t-re den hta:weaeld.a te Jleded Otpri $aN71413ialti MNV1i1.ThYW�IiT5Wa33N1S` 659.6Zr - - - - -6se'6zr lelOwns Iwnd v •nsgsyy + 000, ;, " OOL'/L •t•; 000'0 itt'!l ., . 'KM . Welle �. ' J - ".,. . , J� +- i - + l; +. R' ,' • : , . F:. ) ,' , � 000'0Sz OOZ'fr 000'oz tttli• unit ',Vat 000Z'0unr OOOLsun' f 000z'sun(' eeel''0a ' >.a 000t'omit zste 9SCL sect tett e6zt tort LIZ Liz trz tzr ezz trr S 1,1411170•0 y . ammo `.'ItII1/311 r Vt1I�II i. IFS, e i'l V iYifll ... WM �..,V�,. -Tt �� t V tVi11 a .t tt I• , . ' . ? V rfail sti pus aapir)1e uooleessut feuds OtpeJ1)0 uo!lonJPUBltuOO POuu0u Jss3 �IifilifiAllmaismail meld Om Ouol op pu90 Put olooioJd dio Ou!Is!xe sle.rod,00ul • g J iRiliiii3FRaddifYikirlriliiiliiib iaij 'Gomm opt wolf swoop, Ougs!xe f0 sispolow we* of sPldo Owner( AaueeNw3 -t�ha+aJ TJiyse �uof$i3`=$3-iioikoiioloijuist5w snowy 44wS u0 o'DeJI puno41som pus IsN Jo) 111A Ou4se0 A3U0e10w3 roN uonois o id.ffifiiiiiifit3Uillilei oawnwd Pue Aor 'luoony-u043) 4�n 33iUla Jg IOu>sg a f� '4PJsup 1 PulOoul Pup •%rumps ut PtgouOgf+f pue10 pus u!efy ',IPA Puma Pug 4Ix!S '•aalii5ifiiio-7irpzliC5Uiril tlb loin tiSiliY 9ZS'Zt1 - - - 000'051 - WVZZ moors punj xoi top 000'OIl •i` 11/YL ,' f p' i, ,. ' 000'OSt I ; •e.- _ irf'Zt 100r •sunk OOOr'mow SeOL °tot rri rrr :., 7.rb" ('�1.1 it iirn) cM ' {% r QdA20 1CV0 1NAS PId3 Pme 1ssJ1S u!eW le feuds o!ipJL nWlfiiiitooi llositr3004 sspeJOdn spropApo osw Oupoptp ( POW) eOpnVed Pus WWI Pus UM) Pall u!eri 'pins Pus Rom PM 1Pora'IPA PP oPou•AV Pug 41x!S IT%iltlloliujpalsiVAWEI windxYi sYo lso3 Ai AA Al AA A3 Al JOAO/LW/3 , 01e0 ON PUN 030K'S uo!Id asp olio' *mini PO -COOL CO-ZOOZ ZO.100Z t0-000Z 000Z-6661 doiddy uopsdwo3 looloJd ppn3 O pus aweN pebJd AA JOpd Polow!ls3 FIVNbit t3NY o- Wri i l &loin 03 f3%ud - MYtl00tld 1N3sf3A0ildi4i lYlidV3 posodOid 000r-6661. Al VN02103 i0 A1/0 CITY OF CORONA FY 1999.2000 Proposed CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Project Cost Listing L_IGNTt-NG_AND 9t4NA1, Estimated Prior FY Fund Project Completion Approp. 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Future Project Name and Description Source Fund No. Dale Carryover FY FY FY FY FY FY Total Cost STREET LIG/tI; MAINTENANCE OttIEICT FUNDS CONT, 1, ,, i 1 'a, SLIM 1 , r SUM " �' '1 s ,. k..+ 419 416 Dec., 2001 June, 2000 • 110,000 ", .... 250,000 50,000 .. _ • f I ,1 .' 500i SO,D00 .i . Urtd9►uround SgestllQtlp4weaIn2s; Power lines for the 36 street lights between Buena Vista 6 Smith on 6th. Street are overhead and frequently IRM51.1>Zr16L1l1MWMI INLIMITI ; Convert 8 inch heads to 12 frith heads. MAD Funds Subtotal 35,371 150,000 300,000 105,000 - - - 590.371 69ULTI FUND PROD€CT$ If6ffl_E_S9gnal Insteli 1± l�n, Ramps at 1.15 and Ontario Ave in conjunction with widening or Ontario Ontario east of Campton aSignal al Compton. ITI! 0 5121191 Modification* Uuuedl; MEAS A SC FEE MEAS A SC FEE 227 264 227 264 7377 7337 7361 7361 Dec.,1999 June, 2000 65,904 W3,000 , �' ~ 1 ' r +',;',r' r 70,000 r •- t i ' 50,000 66,1164 T0,000 dn Various Locations including Magnolia/ Ontario, McKinley at Railroad tracks. Multi Fund Projects Subtotal 65,984 50,000 .70,000 - - 185.984 TOTAL LIGHTING i SIGNALS 1 653,739 l 200,000 620,000 105,000 1,3713,739 27 CITY OF CORONA FY 1999-2000 Proposed CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Project Cost Listing DRAINAGE FACILIngS Estimated ' Prior FY Fund Project Completion Approp 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Future Taal Project Name and Descrplwn Source Fund No Dale Carryover FY FY FY FY FY FY Cost DWELlJ_NG DEYELOPAIENT TAX FSIND er!!do @asln Cltypyblle Wodr ProllSls' DDT '-., DDT ' 289 289 8166 8167 Ongoing 67,328 300,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 017,328 Wetland mitigation in connection with City facilities in the Pfado Basin area. - Dwelling Development Tax Fund Subtotal 67.328 300.000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30.000 517.328 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANcE pISTRICT FUND liPQ! RaPa1M, Repay slope failures. SlsRANO Oro Slopes; LNDS ;.., + r� +� FE:MA I '. t1 TA, 44S 448 6100 6101 June, 2000 June, 2000 26,770 8,682 , ,, i 28,7T0 8,882 . Repay slope failures. Landscape Maintenance Dieing Fund Subtotal 33,352 - - - - - - 33,352 MEASURE A FUND Maaa UrITa Storrrl tha1R Improv_1; Improvements to Mesa Storm Drain.t,! ,toy StrettStom1 PrIlli , Project is needed to relieve flooding on Grand Blvd. and Blaine Street. Project consistent with the No. Man Street revitalization plan. W4£<1-119hweyQralnagi671lem; Storm drain raper and maintenance at various locations within the city, MaJw Storm Drain Improvement; MEAT A it r� 115A61 A' ; - 1 MEASA..O ,.. MEAs At ?:1 C 227 227 227 227 7225 8926 6924 7228 June, 2000 Dec., 2000 Ongoing Dec., 2000 1 60,000 23,491 190,458 120,100 .J • 440,000 ' 000 23,401 190,488 - 4 800,100 • Reconstruction and improvement of existing facilities. Measure A Fund Subtotal 394,049 440,000 - - • _ - 834,049 MULTI FUND PROJECTS Drainage, Misatar Plan; Citywide Drainage Master Plan. S .1.5. ,It4TL sARIlysItm; CSA 162 . - - CSA 152 , PlD 1,i PLD 4 MEAL A • ';. RCPCp i,{+.�. . . 245 245 438 438 227 7212 7230 7230 72U 7234 June, 2000 June, 2000 Jane, 2000 3,917 75,885 fag 115,379 433,297 - ' • ' > 211 000 ': ; ; , !1� it r, , 3,917 75,886 ASA 88,379 441,217 Geographical Information System (G.I.61 for the citywide drain system. eanona Road Storm Drift; Storm drain along Pomona Rd. east of American Cede and to Maple aultimately to abandoned Yorba Street. Muni Fund Projects Subtotal 600,467 215,000 - - - - 815,467 TOTAL DRAINAGE 1,095,196 155,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 2,200,198 MVO LL'L 09111LtiL 1V101 'spun/ lelepei ul 000'99Z$ sePnPul . pefad lueweAadwl 009'090' i •*098'5b£' L eoUeueluleyy luewened mem / geyea ;maimed epinr1413 'Z 000'0C 00010E lueweoeldea ups weikud yuewepeldaa uBls eweN hags 'I. SOMA 1600T/101 3c1A1103POZId simrv3 IIVN 1031'Oad 'ON V 381161/311 113U 666 L 'ZZ eunr :oleo zeJed 'O uenr :Aq peiedeid leweH 10 fao :Aoue®y IN 000Z-666 L Ad IMVtiJOad SONnd W301 Al» 3?JnSV31h r NOISSIWYIl00 NOI1V11I0dSNVal A110100 3aIS113Ala tee`8L6`6 SKILSZ 966'6L9 °Kim 000'OE •..I.E. Z66`ws& SIre/9Z 96141.9 el► inn 004'OE . 1V101 quewenadwl Aped,* / eu!uep!M leen eoueuelu!elgl luewened eoueuelu!ell fuewgned lueweoeldea u6m Pefad luewenoudwl lewlS eP!N►-A113 Perwd qem etl luewened ep!M- 1!3 pefad lees epeynS ep!, AI!3 unnikud sueweoeldea WM eweN ►eel 'b 'g Z ' 1, SONf1A V 3EMSV311 16031V101 3dA1.103t0Vd athi V3rivN 103POZld 'ON . 11311 T T NOISSI111'403 NOLLV12I0dSNVaI A1Nn09 301Sa3A121 1,00Z-000Z Ad VINAIDOIld SONflA 111001 NV,' 311115113111 6661 'ZZ eUnf IWO wed '3 uenr :Aq pendeid 1eweH iftV3 :Aoueffy 08'8Lei ZOL' L LE SOb'EZ9 We l 1E 000'0E Wart ZOL' L LE SOVEZ9 ?AL' 1 LE 000'OE 10.01 quewenoudwl IpedeO / Bu1UePIM PeAS eoueuelulew luewened eas'etielupyv I11911Aed lueweoeldeli uBiS Peloid Iuewen uduul leeAS eP!m-f4I3 pe(oid gelled lUeinmed epunrA113 peed REIS welinS eP!N►.43 weJecud lueweaeldea Wm eweN leeJ1S 'b 'E Z ' 1 SaNnd v 3ansv3w 180371101 304.133rObd Sl1Y1neVIVN 103ra yid 'ON NMI 6661 'ZZ °tint :MB(' wed '3 uent :Aq peuedeid 3aweH Jo 40 :Away ZOOZ•100Z Ad wV11001Id SONN 11/001 Ain 321111 3W NOISSIIIIINOO NOLLVIAIOdSNWII ALN1100 301Sa3A1Z1 IN O 4 r, V 99V9LV 111'M £991L99 11►6'£K S ILf'. 1691£1►E £991L99 Il►9'£1►£ Ttl.01 sluewenadwl Apede3 / Bu1eAP!M le8llS eoueueWleyg lueuweAed acweuetuRvd lueumed lead luewenoidwl leeilS elWA-43 bold ge4ea luewened BWA-A1I0 Farad IeAS eoeiinS ef!n►-A1!0 '£ •Z 1 soma V► minsravi ism 1d101 3cLU.103POZld 811N11/3N rN 103110Zld 'ON NaLI COOZ-ZOOZ Ad NIRIJOad SaNnd 1V001 Al» 31111SV131N NOISSIVO100 NOUd1110dSNIN1 ALNI100 3OISM3A121 6661 'ZZ eunr ARO wad .0 uent :Aq peuiedem leweH 10 :Aoue6d )(, I_ 1.,1 l��� SEL'LLW I. 9£L'LLb' 1V101 sluawenoxiw' Apedeo E£b469E ££1/169£ / Ou!ueP!AA leeAS tabloid yueweAQld us 1ee119 eP!rk-43 '£ 699.9EL 69919SL eaueuelu!eW 1U0W0Aed c peed geyell luewened epua-410 'Z E£b'69£ ££V'69£ eousuelwew Pali/Med PAraid IeAS eoelinS eP!M-Ll!3 ' 1 , soma v aansv3w 15001V101 3dA1103rOtld S11NirV3WVN 1031'021d _ 'ON V ali 6661 'ZZ eunr :oleo wed •3 uen f pendeud leweH 10 :Aoue6y POOZ'£OOZ A� VARI90Vd SaNnd 1V001.v. aansv3w r NOISSINNO3 N011.1/12IOdSM1 JLLNIIOo 30ISMAia OZZ OZZ AV1a3A0/NOI1V11118VH3a 1N3W3AVd V1103 M331 Ol '13 OaVHOVn :133a1S N100NI1 OLE OLE AV1a3A0/NOI1V11119VH3a 1N3113AVd Ol 1:10 3a01-193NV1 :133a1S 00VH0VW S6E S6£ AV1a3A0/NOLLV11118VH3a 1N3W3AVd 3AIa0 32JOHS3NV1 Ol St-1 :133a1S 3NV'1 S£9 099 AVla3AOM011V11118VH3a 1N3W3AVd 111411 A113 01 S-1 :OVOS NOANVO OVOH11V8 SZE SLS AV1a3A0/N011V11119VH3a 1N3113AVd 3Al2:10 3HOHS3NV1 Ol St-1 :133a1S NNW SZ OZ l 11:10d31:1 Aan1S 103fOad 39NV1-10831Ni OVON NOANVO OVOa11Va / St-1 0 Sl£ 9NIOVdanS3a/AV1a3A01N3113AVd 311N3AV 2:1311100 - 3AIN0 380HS3NV1 :13381S JNIadS SZ SZ N011VNIWV1N0030 1S anHdlnS/iS NIVW 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 CS311ddnsniot AVd) iN3W391/NVIIV N01101181SNOOMN0433NION3/SNHOM °Ilan 8103COad/SNOI1V001 SnOIaVA :301A83S 'NIWaV ANIVW 1332:11S/31031'0W d10 OOl OOl OOl 00t OOl OOt 00t OOt OOt 00t N1VM3aIS ONIISIX3 a V a •N1VM301SM311119 aNV 9an0 M3N SN011V001 SnOIaVA :nVaJOad 1N31430V1d3a N1VM3als ONV 9an0 OOt 001, OOt OOt OOt OOt OL OOl OOl 00l AV1a3AOM011d11119VH3a 1N3n3AVd SN011V001 SnOINVA :NOI1Va01S38 133a1S 91103NV1130SIW OS OS 09 OS OS 09 OS 09 09 09 1V3S Aaanis SNOI1V001 snOlaVA :30NVN31NIVW/S2M/dad 133a1S Sn03NV7130SIW saNnd 1S00 V 'SV311 1V101 1,0/£0 saNnd iS00 V 'SV3n 1V101 EO/ZO saNnd 1SOO V 'Veil 1V101 Z0/1.0 SONnd 1500 V 'WM 1V101 10/00 saNnd 1S00 V 'SV31^1 1V101 00/66 NOIld1210930 /3WVN 103fOad 12IONIS'I3 3x9I d0 Alla Z d0 t 39Vd b00Z-6661 AA wVZIJOad saNnd 11/301.V. 321nsV3M1 NOISSIWWOO NOI LVlaOdSNVal Ammo 301SISAlk1 s OOOf1 spuesnow stunIIV moN 08£S OWLS 0££S SOULS 0££! S£LS 00£S 09£S SZVZS OWES =S1V101 OSZ OS AV1213A0/NOI1V11119VH3t11N3V13AVd 13381S 1V111833 Ol H3383 NOSSVM : '3AV U311103 009 SL AV183A0/NOI1V11118VH381N3W3AVd 13381S A3NVH3 01133N1S NINON :3f1N3AV 113N1Nf1S OS 091 9NIN301M 13381S 13381S 00VHOVW AO 1SV3.00Z 0113381S NVOINN3f :3A180 32101-1S3HV1 OSP SZ£ ONIN301M 133819 133211S N30A210 Ol OVOM V1103 V8H31 :3A180 38014S3HV1 001 001 21311f10 V 88(13'1N3W3AVd NOIIVIS AA1831-1S S1N3N3A06d111 '1S ddV1SJNV1 08 08 AVM)IVM NV18/9103d S1N31N3AO21d1N113NNVHO M0131f10 OSL cis 8311119 V 821(13'1N3W3AVd (Vd0) S1N31613A0UdWl 3f1N3AV N311103 SONni 1S0O V 'SV3W 1V101 NYCO SONnA - 1SOO V 'SV3141 1V101 £0/20 SONnA iSOO V SV3W 1V101 Z0/1.0 SONnd 1S0O V "SV3141 1V101 10/00 S0Nf1A 1S03 V "SV311 1V101 00/66 NOIld1113930 /3111VN 1331'08d 780NITO 371V'I d0 1113 Z d0 Z 30Vd POOZ-6661 AA INVHDOtld SONI1d 1V001.V. TRISV3W NOISSIMOO N011V1210dSNV2l1 A1Nf100 30191:13A121 N.0001 spuesnow u/ sam HY MoN Item No. 1 Project Funding Year(s) 2 3 4 5 6 1996/98 1997/00 1997/04 1997/02 1997/98 1997/98 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE-YEAR PROJECTIONS FY 1999-2004 Project Name/Limits Project Type Status Total Cost Heacock St/Cactus Ave. - Alessandro Blvd. Nason/Alessandro-Route 60 Route 60/Perris Interchange Imp. Route 60/Nason Street Interchange Rehabilitation/ Widen Construction complete $41, 380* Measure "A" Funding $41,380"1 Rehabilitation/ Widen Consultant retained May 1997 for design. Est. start of construction: October 1999. (RCFC & WCD has constructed storm drain before street improvements) $2,950,320* $950,3201 R/VV, PSR, Realignment of w/b off -ramp Project study report 20% complete. Caltrans approved year 2020 traffic model. $534,870* $534,870* Perris Blvd/Bay Ave-Dracaea Ave Graham St/Cactus Ave - Alessandro Blvd. Interchange imp. HOV lanes east and west bound Rehabilitation Consultant retained May 1997 for design. Requires revised project report, design, Ca!trans & FHWA approval, utility relocation and R/VV. Est. start of construction: January 2001. Env. study in process. Construction complete $6,000,000* $847,222* $1,100,0002 $397,22113 Rehabilitation Construction complete $452,000* $452,000 ISTEA future funding request $2,000,000; Measure "A" $950,320 2 ISTEA future funding request $4,200,000; CMAQ $700,000; Measure "A" $1,100,000 3 ISTEA funding approved $450,000; Measure "A" $397,220 Includes carryover funding —4-, Butpunj Janokueo sepnpul 00010014;uawesmqugei Aluno3 epsianla S 00010E it .V. emseeyr :000'091' 3 sPun! (ou!N 13) eBewsa awns elB1S e 000'SS$ Bu1Pun1.V. emse8104 :000'0£$ Bulpun; mum Pe;ew0se 1Z99S 000'09l$ W!NN OM 8V s 066 LLl$ .V. amseew .000 00£$ (V33.91) wei0oid &ipso.* mem Moi 000'6$.V. amseapj :000'93 Bu1Pun1 V31SIRlaBH y 60$ 000'0014 uo!pod An tipM peprupsuom eq o; uotpod ;uno0 eptsianlN '6661. IRA utBeq o; not;oru;suo0 not;onr;suooeld uopoyy-09 e;nowsBuudS x08 00/666L £L 500010£L$ 000'06Z'L$ 6661, 11ed :uotpru;suo0 •pe;eldwoo %06 uBlsea uot;oru;suooeN Aea-uouovws6uudS xo8 00/6661. ZL /000'SLZ$ .000'SZP$ weiBad lenuue ButoB-uO mIlemEoPIS smemePIS t70/6661. LL 30$ 000'09 L $ sseoad ut podeN Pefoid seuei ENG II '81 sse10 not;oru;suo0 euei eloA318 L0/666 L 0 L s066'1.Ll$ .066'LL17$ Tun;oru;s xoq peoJotutei mil ButuBtsep Aq An NI tiPm eJn;uen;utof 111m a0M'8 0A01:1 wewenoidwl eBeuteia •;S d owl OS/80N sPUeIP98 00/L66L 6 y0L6't•$ .0L6'V$ a;eldwoo not;oru;suo0 pH Jeweg upa olio;S JePUeeIORS l000eeH pue .j. leuuey0/iS sn;oe0) weiBad ;uewtoOeldeN ltem iewee 96/L66L 8 000'S9$ .0008S9$ e;eldwoo not;oru;suo0 uotprupsuooe8 'LS eutpueNAS N000eeH 86✓L66L L Butpund „y„ ainseaW ;sop le;ol sn;e3S edAi pefoad sll/ewe N ;oefo�d we (One% BulPund ;oaroad 'oN we;I Item No. Project Funding Project Name/Limits Project Type Status Total Cost Measure "A" Funding 14 1999/01 Ironwood Rehabilitation/Day St.- Pigeon Pass Rd. Reconstruction Project Report in process $1,815,000 $90,0001 $1,788,945 15 1999/04 Annual Pavement Resurfacing Rehabilitation/ Overlay On -going annual program $1,788,945* 16 1999/04 Slurry Seal Program Resurface On -going annual program $1,462,260* $1,462,2E. 17 1999/04 Surface Recycling Rehabilitation On -going annual program $179,750* $179,750 18 2000/04 San Michele/Indian St -Penis Blvd. Street Constr./ R/W Acquisition Planning stages $1,150,000 $1,150,000 19 2000/04 Pigeon Pass Rd Rehabilitation/ Western Ridge Road -Old Lake Drive Rehabilitation Planning stages $1,455,000 $1,455,000 20 1997/99 Locust Ave, East of Redlands Blvd.. Widen/ Rehabilitation Project dropped due to right-of-way requirements. $124,620* $9,0G. 21 1998/99 Hemlock/Pigeon Pass — WB Route 60 Exit Street Lights Construction complete $20,000 $20,000 10 TEA 21-STP funding $1,725,000; Measure "A" $90,000 Includes carryover funding t 6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 1999-2000 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25. 1999 Pape 1 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost ($1000's) Maas "A" ($1000's) 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south city limits to I-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 11,350 335 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 368 368 rlo3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 2000-2001 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25, 1999 Page 2 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost ($10001) 11,350 Meas "A" (51000's) 335 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south city limits to 1.15, and 1-15 and 1-215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 418 418 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 2001-2002 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25, 1999 Page 3 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost (510001s) Meas "A" 01000.0 - 335 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south City limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 11,350 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 480 480 0f1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 2002-2003 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25, 1999 Page 4 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost ($10001s) Maas "A" ($1000's) 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south city limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 11,350 335 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 543 543 R7%' ✓ Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 2003-2004 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25, 1999 Page 5 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost 1$1000'sj 11,350 Meas "A" .11000's) , 335 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south city limits to 1.15, and 1.15 and 1.215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 608 608 1y3 000'0£ $ 000'0Z $ 000'0E $ 000'0Z $ l9b'917$ 96/8WI l 'dwoa '96/Z/6 Paemv - woo leas 6u0P1S -uoneniene luawaned Joj;no - Aepenonsuooaa woo leas snoeuelposlW >19Z$ Buuds alel 318Z$ weaBoid //ed - 6u!cipls laa-1)s aniJa MOIA A)190H of anuany Jepa0 - anpa oaioN Y 9 9 000'£17 $ 000'£17 $ 096'Z17$ 6640/b PaPti"V-Aeliano/uogon.ijsuooeu eApa malnlsaia of anuany epo/Ilea - laa llS yliA3 b 'women° /uawaned aoj /np- Aelaan0 a6pulied of puoaas-*any u.181sa/w pJ Jawo}l SCIN E 000'09C $ 000'09£ $ 66/Zl/5 Papmem y - Aelaan0/uogana)suo3au Janokuea )aallS }/n18 o) anuany uoptioa - peod aanl2l Z 096` 6 LZ $ 096' 11.Z $ pafoid 96umpa)ul Aemea u veciAed a6ueyola)ul ewnA 1, (s.000$) spund (S.000$) 3dJ11103f 021d S111NI1 / 3WHN 103f 021d 'ON „ V„ ainseaw )so0 Ie)o1 W311 T )o T :abed 4 z: S - 6661. - 8661. Jld WV210021d SONfId 1V001 ..V.. 321f1S1/31A1 NOISSIWW00 NOI1V1210dSNV211 AiNf100 30IS213AN 6661. '81. AeW :a)ea 4uayos :Aq paaedaad oaaoN jo Amo :AouaBd 000'Z8 $ 000'98 $ 000'Z8 $ 000'$8 $ Aepan0 Aeuan0 oes-ap-ln0 01 laaals knit] - 1004S awA pnoa lesuns pue aloilo uol(uea mopeys 8 L 000'EV $ 000'EP $ AepeAC) slaalls ulxls of iSe3 - anuand eluiolyea 9 000'Z6 $ 000'Z6 $ Aepan0/uollonulsuooali anuany leosawal of laails pilyl - eApa alonJasa8 9 000'91 l $ 000'91.L $ Aeuan0iuollon4suooa8 Biwa yoeooa6els of peon Janw - 188.119 llnl8 t 000'0£ $ 000`0£ $ leoa leas woo leas snoeuellaoslW £ 000'0Z $ 000'0Z $ 6ulduls 6uldulS laaalS Z OlE'VEZ $ Ol£'VEZ $ a6uNoialul NoeciAed a6ueuoaalul ewnA l (s.000$) spund (S.0000 3dAl. loaf Oad S11Wn / 3WHN loaf omd 'ON „b„ amseew ;soo le;o1 Wall T;o T :e6ed 000Z - 6664 AA Wb21J021d saNnd wool ..V., 32insv3W NOISSIWWOO N011H1210dSNb211 koinOo 3a1S213A121 6664 '1 4 ABW Nuayos T :Aq paiedaid ooioN jo AID :Aoua6d RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000 -2001 Agency: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Schenk Date: May 18,1999 Page: _l_ of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE Total Cost ($000'S) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Yuma Interchange Payback $ 266,200 $ 266,200 2 Broken Arrow Street - Corydon Avenue to Bluff Street Reconstruction/Overlay $ 51,000 $ 51,000 3 Eighth Street - Pedley to California Avenue Reconstruction $ 33,000 $ 33,000 4 Pedley Avenue - Seventh Street to the North End Reconstruction $ 63,800 $ 63,800 5 River Drive - Center to Hillside Avenues Reconstruction/Overlay $ 15,000 $ 15,000 6 Chestnut Drive - Bluff Street to Corydon Avenue Overlay . $ 41,600 $ 41,600 7 Buckskin Lane - Califomia to Crestview Avenues Overlay $ 34,000 $ 34,000 000'09L $ 000'0V $ 000'09L $ 000'Oti $ pepied a6umpie ul ewnA swewenadwl leu ft pilau. g g 000'0ZI. $ 000'01. $ woo peg snoaue1100M b' 000'09 $ 000'09 $ 6uldl.;g leans E 000'06 $ 000'06 $ wawaned snoeuellaoslW Z 000'098 $ 000'098 $ uogone;suooeu leagg i. (s,000$) spun3 (MOOS) 3dAl 133rotid S11WIl / 3WVN 103f Oad 'ON „ V,, ainseew ;soO le;ol W311 10 T :aged b00Z - ZOOZ AA WV219021d SaNnA IVOOI ..V.. 321r1SV3W NOISSIWWOO N0IlV1210dSNV211 AlN1103 3aIS213/U21 666; `86 AMA' :e;ea lumps T :Aq pasedaad ootoN Jo 43 :AouaBV CITY OF PERRIS Mailing: 1'0 Box 606/Perris, CA 92572 Office: 170 Wilkerson, Suite A/Perris, CA 92570 TEL:909-943-6504 FAX:909-943-8416 046559 Habib Motlagh City Engineer June 7, 1999 Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Measure "A" Loan and 5-Year Plan Dear Ms. Bechtel: The following projects are funded by City's $1.9 Million loan: 1. Ramona Expressway — Complete 2. Mountain Avenue, Sun Park and Sunny Sands — Complete 3. Evans Road — Pending R/W 4. Perris Boulevard — To Supplement STP Funds — FY 2000 5. Enchanted Heights and Indian Hills — Pending Sewer Issue 6. Rider Street — Complete 7. "A" Street — Under Construction 8. Metz Road — Under Construction 9. Goetz Road — Complete Also the following are the list of City's 5-year plan utilizing the balance of our Measure "A" funds: Project Fiscal Year Total Cost (1,000's) Measure A Funds (1,000's) 1. Misc. Pothole Repair 2000-2004 60 60 2. Nuevo Road 2000 250 25 3. Ramona Expressway 2000 850 200 4. Park Avenue 2001 120 120 5. Misc. Pavement Rehab. 2002 500 500 6. Placentia Avenue 2003 300 300 7. Case Road 2004 300 300 j� As requested, I am enclosing a copy of the MOE calculations. Please call me should you require additional information. Sincerely, Habib Motlagh City Engineer HM:se Cc: Ron Molendyk, City Manager Terry Shea, Finance Director Enclosure RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2004 FY 2000 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared By: Rick McGrath Date: June 3, 1999 ITEM PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS NO. PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) Page 1 of 6 CURRENT YR. MEASURE "A" FUNDING ($1,000's) TOTAL MEASURE FUNDING ($1,000's) 1. Van Buren Blvd. Widening Magnolia to 91 Freeway 2. Major Street Rehabilitation 3. Jurupa Ave -Van Buren to Crest 4. CADME - Street Plan Data 5. Tyler St - Arlington to Eureka 6. Arlington Ave - Murray to Neil 7. Indiana Ave - Monroe to Doyle 8. Indiana Ave - McKinley to Mary 9. 91 Freeway/Van Buren Blvd. 10. Van Buren @ Cleveland Street Widening Street Resurfacing Street Widening Data Updates Street Widening Street Widening Street Widening Street Widening Interchange Replacement Traffic Signal $ 5,000 $ 2,000 $ 500 $ 2,200 $ 1,600 $ 55 $ 4,750 $ 3,500 $ 275 $ $ 300 $ $ 85 $ $ 12,000 $ $ 100 $ $ 3,000 $ 500 $ 2,200 $ 4,600 $ 275 $ 300 $ 85 $ 2,600 $ 100 ITEM NO. Agency: City of Riverside Prepared By: Rick McGrath Date: June 3, 1999 PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2004 FY 2000 PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) Page 2 of 6 CURRENT YR. MEASURE "A" FUNDING ($1,000's) TOTAL MEASURE "A" FUNDING ($1,000's) 11. Van Buren @ Morris 12. Tyler @ Campbell 13. Tyler @ Gramercy 14. University - Ottawa to Eucalyptus 15. Spruce @ Atlanta 16. La Sierra - Gramercy to Arlington 17. Computers 18. Mitchell - Wells to Arlington Replacement Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Installation z Traffic Signal Installation Medians Traffic Signal Installation Street Widening - Eng. Workstations Street Widening Sub -Total $ 90 $ $ 100 $ $ 100 $ $ 2,100 $ $ 120 $ 1,500 $ $ 10 $ $ 800 $ $ 33,130 $ $ 90 100 $ 100 100 $ 100 200 $ 200 120 $ 120 $ 1,500 10 800 $ $ 800 5,385 $ 16,570 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2004 FY 2001 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared By: Rick McGrath Date: June 3, 1999 ITEM PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS NO. PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) Page 3 of 6 CURRENT YR. TOTAL MEASURE "A" MEASURE "A" FUNDING FUNDING ($1,000's) ($1,000's) 1. Major Street Rehabilitation 2. SPRR Crossings at Palmyrita, Columbia, Marlborough, Rustin, Rehabilitation and Atlanta 3. CADME Street Plan 4. Traffic Signal Improvements 5. University Ave - Ottawa to Eucalyptus 6. Jurupa Ave Underpass 7. Computers Data Updates Traffic Signals Medians Street Underpass Street Resurfacing $ 2,000 Signals/Street $ 780 $ 1,600 $ 300 $ 2,100 $ 14,000 Eng. Workstations $ 5 Sub -Total $ 20,785 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 780 $ 780 $ 55 $ $ 300 $ 300 $ 1,900 $ 2,100 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 5 $ $ 8,040 $ 8,180 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Agency: City of Riverside Prepared By: Rick McGrath Date: June 3, 1999 ITEM NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2004 FY 2002 PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) Page 4 of 6 CURRENT YR, MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($1,000's) 1. Central Avenue Van Buren to Adams 2. Traffic Signal Improvements 3. La Sierra Ave/Magnolia Ave Intersection 4. Major Street Rehabilitation 5. Victoria Ave - La Sierra Ave To Boundary Ln 6. Van Buren Blvd/91 Interchange Intersection 7. Computers 8. CADME Street Plan Street Widening Traffic Signals Medians $ 1,500 $ 300 $ 400 Street Resurfacing $ Medians Interchange Eng. Workstations Data Updates Sub -Total 2,000 $ 450 $ 10,000 $ 5 $ 1,600 $ 16,255 $ 450 $ 300 $ 400 $ 2,000 $ 450 $ 2,000 $ 5 $ 55 $ 5,660 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared By: Rick McGrath Date: June 3, 1999 ITEM NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2004 FY 2003 PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) Page 5 of 6 CURRENT YR. MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($1,000's) 1. Traffic Signal Improvements 2. Campbell St - Mitchell to Jones Ave 3. Major Street Rehabilitation 4. Arlington Ave - Ottawa to Eucalyptus 5. Central Avenue - Van Buren to Adams 6. CADME Street Plan 7. Computers Traffic Signals $ 300 $ 300 Street Widening $ 800 $ 800 Street Resurfacing $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Medians $ 600 $ 600 Street Widening $ 1,500 $ 1,000 Data Updates $ 1,600 $ 55 Eng. Workstations $ 5 $ 5 Sub -Total $ 6,805 $ 4,760 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared By: Rick McGrath Date: June 3, 1999 ITEM NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2004 PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS FY 2004 PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) Page 6 of 6 MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($1,000's) 1. Traffic Signal Improvements 2. 91 Freeway/La Sierra Ave - Interchange 3. Major Street Rehabilitation - 4. CADME Street Plan 5. Computers 6. Central Ave - Lochmoor to City Limits Traffic Signals Replace/Widen $ 300 $ 14,000 Street Resurfacing $ Data Updates Eng. Workstations Medians $ 350 2,000 $ 1,600 $ 5 Sub -Total $ 18,255 TOTAL $ 95,230 $ 300 $ 2,700 $ 2,000 $ 55 $ 5 $ 350 $ 5,410 $ 29,255 H E CITY OF SAN JACINTO Development Services June 2, 1999 Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Project Manager R.C.T.C. 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Dear Ms. Bechtal: Pursuant to your request, we are providing you with the list of our 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. As you know, the City of San Jacinto has entered into an agreement with RCTC to borrow $1.3 million from its future Measure "A" funds to facilitate construction of the following projects: 1. Sanderson Avenue - Supplement STIP grant 2. Shaver Street - Complete 3. Esplanade Avenue - Railroad Crossing and other Improvements - Pending Legal Issues 4. Industrial Way and alley behind City Hall - Partially complete 5. Main Street - Pending Downtown Specific Plan approval 6. Various Intersection Improvements - Contract awarded 7. Miscellaneous Downtown Street - Pending Council Decision Also, on the following page, please find the list of additional projects to utilize the balance of San Jacinto's Measure "A" Funds. 201 E. Main Street • San Jacinto, CA 92583 Tel:909/487-7330 • Fax:909/654-9896 • www.ci.san-jacinto.ca.us Project FY Total Cost Measure "A" $1000's $1000's Lake Park Bridge 99-00 $6,500 $500 State Street 99-00 200 200 Cottonwood & Seventh St. 99-00 300 100 Misc. Pothole Repairs 00-01 .15 15 Lyon Avenue 01-02 200 200 Misc. Pothole Repairs 01-02 20 20 San Jacinto Avenue 02-03 150 150 Misc. Pothole Repairs 02-03 15 15 Ramona Boulevard 03-04 100 1� , 1, soo Please note the above list is based on the fact that we will continue receiving 'A of our Measure "A" pursuant to the loan agreement. Also, the City Council is expected to review the list within the next sixty days and if the list is modified, we will submit a copy for your use. I am enclosing a copy of the MOE calculations. Please call me should you require additional information. Sincerely, HABIB TLAG City Engineer X-copy: L. Michael Hanavan, City Manager H agracea\habibaCTCSYRCapImplan Oi RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999 - 2000 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date: 8-Jun-99 Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS MOO'S) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000'S) 1 Design & construction of pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction of major streets 5treet reconstruction and rehabilitation 975 975 2 Ynez Road Improvements between Rancho Califomia Road and Tierra Vista Road Design 8 ultimate construction of road improvements 123.3 123.3 3 Diaz Road Realignment to Vincent Moraga Road Design & ultimate construction of four -lane roadway 810 810 r idauerpubwks\MeasureA99-04.jcd P.)! v0-66Vainseavcs4mgndlPenePvi 964'4 964'4 Aempew euel-omi wuelul )o uonoruisuoo eletugin v u6lsaa leans %ea of uolsuew3 peoll zeta Z 009 009 uonempieueJ pue uollonJisuoaaJ laaJis slaaJis Jofew to uollorulsuooei pue uonempleueu Newened jo uogonJisuoo v u6lsea 4 (S.000S) SaNnd „v.. 3ansv3w (s.000s) S1SOo 1v101 3dA1 lo3road slain /31AIVN 103rOad 'ON wall 9 to Z eBed 66-unri :algid Jeauou3 AmsvoM ogind jo Joloema Bulhy - sayBnH .O welI11M :Ag paiedeld elnoawal jo Apo :itoua6y 100Z - 000Z AA INVaJOlyd SOMA -wool ..V.. aanSV3w NOISSIWWO3 NOI1V1aOdSNVa1 A1Nn00 301Sa3Aia po! bo-66demsear! lsmmqnd1!ianewl 0 g'S£L g'S£L uo!;ewcieuei pus u090r1.118u000i;owls swans Jorew;o uopru;suoaaJ pue uogempeyau;uawaned Jo uonon4suoo +g u6!saa _ I (S.00OS) SONnA ..V.. 32UISVm (S.000$) S1SOO 1V101 3dAl 1031"021d S11WIl /311VN 103rOlid 'ON IN311 g Jo £ 96ed 66-unr-g :plea Jeau!Bu3 A310/s)poM ;o Jo;oana Bu!loV - sayBnH 'O we!II!M :Ag peiedaid e!naawal;o Alm :AauaBV ZOOZ - LOOZ Ad INV2ID021d SOMA 1d001..10►.. 32111SV31/4 NOISSIWW00 N011V1210dSNV211 A1Nf100 301S213AI2i po! to-66veniseamspAcpcnfienepvi t'Zt►8 p'Zh8 uogeumegai pue uaRDrulsu008.11894S sump Jofew /o uoprupuom pue uol;euligeyaJ;uawaAed 10 uoiloruasuoo I ul3map 1„ (S.000s SarinA ..V.. 321f1SV3W (S.0000 S1SOa iV1O1 - 3d111 la3rOad S11WI'1 /3INVN 1a3rOad 'ON IN311 g ()Bed 66-unr-8 :amp Jaaui6u3 AIpampoM Ncind /o aowanp Bunoy - sou6nH •O weil[IM :A8 paiedald mama]. /o :Aoua6y COW - ZOOZ Jl� NIVHOO21d SaNnA 1V001..V.. 32111SV3W NOISSIWWOa NOI1V12IOdSNV211 AiNf1OO 3018213A11:1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date: 8-Jun-99 Page 5 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS P00'S) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000'S) 1 Design & construction of pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction of major streets Street reconstruction and rehabilitation 951.4 951.4 i i. • • OdauerpubwkeMeas ureA99-04.jcd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 1 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) 03rd St Hammond Rd 0.28 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Date Kiler Rd 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 07th St Date Palm St 0.25 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Dale Kiler Rd 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) Fund Source Total 301 other Total Fund Source Amount x S1000 40 0 40 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 100/01 101/02 102/03 03/04 D 0 0 0 2 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 37 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 301 other Total 25 0 25 10th Ave C & D Blvd to Intake Blvd (Rte 95) 1.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst and widen road Coordinate with the City of Blythe for paving the south 1/2 of the road. 302 other Total 170 169 339 24th Ave SH78 to Buck Blvd 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf 261,0.21'12MS 42nd Ave Yucca Lane to Glass Dr 1.75 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 86 (ft) Recon. portions, Widen AC Paved Road 302 other Total 301 other Total 202 0 202 563 0 563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 18 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 151 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 1 1 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55th Ave Calhoun St to Coachella CL 0.50 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 22' RMS Coordinate with City of Coachella for part of the project. 73rd Ave Windlass Dr 0.16 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Ely Windlass Dr .16 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 301 other Total 34 14 48 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 30 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 other Total 26 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 23 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 2 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) 84th Ave Rte 86 to Johnson St 0.80 , (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 24' RMS Albatross Way Vander Veer Rd 0.24 (mi) Resurface 0.21', 24' RMS 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft)' Fund Source Fund Source Amount x 81000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction Total 99/00 00/01 101/02 102/03 103/04 301 other Total 301 other Total 103 0 103 23 0 23 2 1 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 2 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R '0 0 0 0 0 C, 0 20 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Alberta Ave Swingle Ave to Wly 0.15 mi 0.15 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 35, RMS 301 other Total Alessandro Blvd I-215 to W'ly to City Limits 0.66 (mi) 13 (ft)/ 13 (ft) Resurface AC Paved Road Eastbound Lane Coordinate with the City of Riverside for the north 1/2 of road. 300 other Total Armstrong Rd 34th 'Street • 0.50 (mi) Resurf AC paved road to Sierra Ave 46 (ft)/ 46 (ft) 300 other Total 21 0 21 45 0 45 34 79 113 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0" 0 0 0 8 E 0 0 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 36 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arrowhead Blvd 18th Ave 1.00 (mi) Resurf 26',0.21'RMS to 20th Ave 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 302 other Total 152 0 152 Aruba Ct Port Royal Ave 0.02 (mi) Reconstruct Surface to Nly Port Royal 0.02 mi 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 301 other Total 8 0 8 D E R C 1 1 0 150 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 3 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Avenida Gracia Camino WM° to Nly 0.20 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Recon 36',0.510G,0.21'RMS Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction Total 301 other Total 42 0 42 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 0 0 0 0 1 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 40 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Avenida Miravilla Avenida San Timoteo to 1.50 mi Sly 1.50 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf 24' 0.17AC W/AC dike 300 other Total Beachcomber Way 69th Ave 0.25 (mi) Resurf RMS paved roaD to Admiralty Wy 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Bellegrave Ave Hamner Ave 2.13 (mi) Reconstruct AC surface to Etiwanda Ave 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) 301 other Total 147 0 147 2 1 0 144 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 46 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 300 other Total 144 726 870 Big Pine St Jeffery Pine Rd 0.20 (mi) Resurf 26',0.17'AC to Silver Fir Dr 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 300 other Total Bohlen Rd Mitchell Rd Nly 0.50 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Const 261,0.510G,0.21'RMS w/Berms 300 other Total Brookside Ave Cherry Ave 1.00 (mi) Resurf 30',0.17'AC SB 300 Cycle 9. to Highland Springs Ave 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 300 other Total 20 0 20 10 0 0 134 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 103 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 100 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 130 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 4 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Total Brookside Ave Nancy Ave 0.80 (mi) Resurf AC paved road to Beaumont Ave 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x S1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition = Environmental C = Construction 117 0 117 99/00 00/01 01/02 102/03 03/04 D 0 0 0 8 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 108 0 300 Measure A/Western Butler Bay Nevis Pl 0.10 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Trinity Cir 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 301 other Total 18 0 18 Cabana Cir Beachcomber Wy 0.04 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Wly Beachcomber.04 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 301 other Total 8 0 8 Cajalco Rd La Sierra Ave 3.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road to W'ly 3 mi 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 300 other Total 479 0 479 Cajalco Rd 8 2 intersections La Sierra and Lk Matt 0.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 40 (ft) Widen and resurf 750' Ely/Wly for turn pockets Intersections a La Sierra and Lake Mathews. 300 other Total 130 0 130 Camino WM ° Avenida Gracia to Bubbling Wells Rd 0.30 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Recon 35',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS 301 other Total 55 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Captains Walk Spinnaker Wy 0.14 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Nallyard Dr 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 301 other Total 23 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 5 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Case St Hayes Ave to Grand Ave 0.30 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.21'RMS on 0.5'DG Fund Source Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 0 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction 102 0 102 Chambers Ave Murrieta Rd 0.40 (mi) Resurf AC paved road to Bradley Rd 60 (ft)/ 60 (ftY 300 other Total 182 0 182 Chickadee Way Robin Dr to Ply End 0.05 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf 26',0.17'AC SB 300 Cycle 9. Design for groundwater and drainage problems. 300 other Total Churchill St Hayes Ave to Nly 0.46 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 261,0.211RMS on 0.5'DG 300 other Total Clinton St Miles Ave 0.25 (mi) Resurface 0.21', 56' AC to Sly to CL 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Coordinate with City of Indio for 1/2 of project. Compass Dr 72nd Ave to Windlass Dr 0.16 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 33' RMS 301 other Total 301 other Total Contour Ave Hansen Ave to Ely 0.66 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon RMS paved road Construct in summer when school is out. Water crosses over the road. 300 other Total 12 0 12 127 0 127 31 22 53 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 103/04 D 0 1 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 100 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 7 0 0 E 0 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 174 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0' 1 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 125 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 2 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 D E R C 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 18 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 6 Name Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x S1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction Total 99/00 1 00/01 01/02 102/03 103/04 Corydon St Grand Ave to Mission Tr 1.56 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 1/2 in the City of Lake Elsinore. Pursue coop w/City. Funds represent full width improvements. 300 other 157 130 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 25 2 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 287 De Portola Rd Anza Rd to Pauba Rd 2.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf 26',0.17'AC 300 other 203 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western • 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 200 0 0 0 0 Total 203 De Portola Rd Pauba Rd to N'ly 2.0 mi 2.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Reconstruct AC paved road SB 300 Cycle 9 300 other 317 0 0 1 E 0 R 0 C 316 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 317 Delano Dr Toll Gate Rd to Nly end 0.27 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf 24',0.17'AC 300 other 27 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 2 1 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 27 301 other 85 10 D 0 E 0 R 0 C O 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 2 1 0 82 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Dillon Rd Worsley to Diablo Rd 1.00 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Overlay with RMS Coordinate with City of Palm Springs for 10% share of project Total 95 Double View Dr Middle Ridge Dr SWIy 1.66 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf 24',0.17'AC - 300 other 163 0 D 2 E 1 R 0 C 160 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 163 Dowman St BroomaLl Ave to Grand Ave 0.23 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.21'RMS on D.5'DG 300 other 77 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 1 1 0 75 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 77 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 7 Name Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 Total 14 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 301 Measure 1 1 0 12 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 301 other Ebb Dr Schoal Dr to Rocky Point Dr 0.12 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 30' RMS 14 Total 11 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 1 1 0 0 A/Western . 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Four Chimneys Rd • Delano Dr to Wly End 0.10 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf 241,0.17'AC Coordinate with waterline work 300 other 11 Total 188 0 0 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 183 0 0 0 0 300 other Gavilan Rd Cajalco Rd to S'ly 0.85 mi 0.85 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Resurf paved road 188 Total 300 other 230 500 D 60 E 0 R 10 C 160 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gavilan Rd Lake Mathews Dr to Eldridge Dr 2.20 (mi) 21 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconstr and widen road 730 Total 818 1562 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 818 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other Gilman Springs Rd SE'ly Jack Rabbit Tr to NW'ly Bridge St 1.80 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconst and widen AC Paved Road Coordinate w/project A2:0433 in Supv. Dist. 3. 2380 Total 300 other 105 1217 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 80 10 0 0 A/Western 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gilman Springs Rd SE'ly Bridge St to SE'ly 1..00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconst AC Paved Rd - 1322 Total 56 2487 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 56 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other Gilman Springs Rd 2 locations Wily Jack Rabbit Tr to SE'ly Bridge St 0.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Recon, realign STP Funds App'd = 52,504k. See A7-0310 in Supv.Dist.S for companion project 2543 Total RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 8 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Total Glenoaks Rd Rancho California Rd 2.76 (mi) Resurf 26',0.21'AC to Ely 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Granada Way Costa Mesa Dr to Beach Comber Way 0.16 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 35' RMS 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x S1000 354 0 354 Measure A Finds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 103/04 0 0 0 3 0 0 E 0 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 350 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 301 other Total 22 0 22 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 Hansen Ave 10th St to Montgomery Ave 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS w/berms 300 other Total 203 0 203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 200 Helen Ave Clinton Ave to Wly 0.4 mi 0.40 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 35' RMS 301 other Total Helm Cir Beacon Dr 0.30 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to N'ly Beacon Dr 0.3 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 301 other Total Hermitage Dr Nly 42nd Av 0.15 mi 0.09 (mi) Resurface Paved Rd to Nly 42nd Av 0.24 mi 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) 301 other Total Holland Rd Bradley Rd 0.75 (mi) Const AC Paved Road to Haun Rd 0 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 300 other Total 50 0 50 7 0 7 11 0 11 88 381 469 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 47 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 2 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 9 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Ironwood Ave Theodore Ave 1.37 (mi) to Badlands Landfill 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Reimburse Waste Management for advanced funds on Project A2-0507. Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total 300 280 other 0 Total 280 Jamaica Sands Dr 42nd Ave to N'ly 42nd Ave 0.46 mi 0.46 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Resurface Paved Road w/Fabric Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 00/01 01/02 102/03 ( 03/04 301 85 other 0 Total 85 Jeffery Pine Rd Cedar Glen Dr Wly 0.30 (mi) Resurf 26',0.17'AC 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 2 E 0 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 82 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 300 35 other 0 Total 35 John Muir Rd Fern valley Rd 0.27 (mi) Resurf 241,0.17'AC to Seneca Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 32 0 0 0 0 300 30 other 0 Total 30 Juniper Flats Rd Juniper Springs to Sly 1.61 (mi) 22'(ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 261,0.51DG,0.21'RMS W/Berms 300 202 other 0 Total 202 Jurupa Rd Etiwanda Ave to Van Buren Blvd 3.28 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Resurf and widen AC paved road Lake Ln Idyllbrook Dr 0.22 (mi) Resurf 24',0.17'AC to Marian View Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 300 314 other 651 Total 965 300 25 other 0 Total 25 D 0 0 2 E 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 27 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 200 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 160 300 Measure A/Western 3 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 2 E 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 22 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 10 Name Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1OOO D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 Total Lake Mathews Dr Gavilan Rd to Wly 1.25 Mi. 1.25 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon RMS paved road 300 other 347 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 20 1 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 347 Total Lake Mathews Dr 1.25 Mi Wly Gavilan Rd to 2.25 Mi Wly Gavilan Rd 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 0 0- Recon RMS paved road 300 other 328 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 10 1 0 0 A/Western . 0 0 0 317 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 328 Total 149 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 138 0 0 0 0 Lake St Acacia Ave to Stetson Ave 1.00 (mi) 21 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 300 other Total 149 Lakeview Ave Ramona Expressway to Nuevo Rd 3.05 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurf 30', 0.25' AC Consider adding turn lanes at Post Office. 300 other 114 442 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 20 2 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 556 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 301 Measure 0 0 0 0, A/Coachella 2 1 0 35 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 38 • 0 301 other Leeward Dr 72nd Ave to Sly 0.34 mi 0.34 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 30' RMS 38 Total Leon Rd (3 segments) Benton Rd to Keller Rd to Olive Rd to Simpson Rd 5.10 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Construct 32' AC paved road on 40' graded Third segment Scott Rd to Holland Rd. CMAC funds app'd = S2,282,95O. - 300 other 385 1826 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 385 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2211 Total 603 194 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 300 Measure 50 2 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 551 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Limonite Ave Etiwanda Ave to I-15 1.50 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) Reconstruct road surface Exist R/W is 85-160 ft. 300 other Total 797 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 11 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction Live Oak Canyon Rd San Timoteo Cyn Rd 2.15 (mi) Resurf AC paved road to S.B. County Line 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Lookout Dr Vanderveer Rd 0.45 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Seaview Wy 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) Lorimer St Grand Ave to Sly 0.30 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 261,0.2192MS on 0.5'DG Total 300 240 other 0 Total 240 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 D 0 10 0 0 0 E 0 2 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 228 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 301 80 other 0 Total 80 D 0 0 2 0 E 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 77 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 300 102 other 0 Total 102 Los Cabaltos Pauba Ave to SH79 1.34 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.21'RMS on 0.51DG Malaga Rd Mission Tr to Ely 0.35 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf 261,0.17'AC Coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore for the north 1/2 of street. D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 D 0 0 1 0 100 0 0 0 0 300 202 other 0 Total 202 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 200 0 0 0 0 300 40 other 0 Total 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marian View Dr SH243 Wly 0.40 (mi) Resurf 24',0.17'AC 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Mauna Loa Dr Mojave Nly 0.31 (mi) Recon 32',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 300 42 other 0 Total 42 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 78 other 0 Total 78 D 0 0 2 0 E 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 75 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 12 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Mayberry Ave Columbia St 0.50 (mi) Recon AC paved road to Dartmouth St 40 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Mc Mahon Rd Middle Ridge Rd 0.07 (mi) Resurf 24',0.17'AC to Marian View Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction Total 99/00 00/01 ( 01/02 02/03 03/04 300 other Total 300 other Total 52 219 271 D E R C 50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 McAllister St Riverside CL 1.00 (mi) Realign and recon to Sly 26 (ft)/ 30 (ft) McKinney Ln Canyon Dr to ;Ply end 0.13 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf 261,0.17'AC Design for groundwater and drainage problems. Meadow Glen Dr Double View Dr. to Idyllbrook Dr 0.34 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf 24',0.17'AC Coordinate with waterline work Middle Ridge Dr Idyllmont Rd to Mc Mahon Rd 1.07 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf 24',0.17'AC Coordinate with waterline work Midland Rd Portions North 1.00 (mi) Resurf 261,0.21'RMS 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 300 other Total 300 other Total 550 0 550 27 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 D 60 0 0 0 0 E 50 0 0 0 0 R 0 100 0 0 0 C 0 0 340 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other Total 300 other Total 302 other Total 36 0 36 105 0 105 0 0 0 '0 3 1 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 0 152 1 1 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 13 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Mission Tr Corydon St to Malaga Rd 1.50 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 48 (ft) Reconst and widen AC paved road Half in the City of Lake Elsinore Monte Vista Dr Baxter Rd 1.23 (mi) Resurf 28',0.21'AC to Bundy Canyon Rd 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x S1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction Total 300 275 other 1585 Total 1860 99/00 ( 00/01 ( 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 275 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 300 174 other 0 Total 174 Neighbours Blvd 36th Ave 1.00 (mi) Resurf 261,0.21'RMS to 38th Ave 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Neptune Dr Flamingo Dr 0.25 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Nly Via CostaBrava.2mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 302 202 other 0 Total 202 D 0 0 3 E 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 170 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 1 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 200 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 301 44 other 0 Total 44 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 2 1 0 41 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 Nevis Pl Butler Bay Pl 0.09 (mi) Reconstruct Surface to Trinity Cir 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) New Chicago Ave Alto Dr to Acacia Ave 0.13 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon surface and widen road 301 31 other 0 Total 31 300 205 other 0 Total 205 North Shore Dr Flamingo Dr 0.27 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Nly Via CostaBrava.lmi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 28 301 Measure A/Coacheila Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 21 2 0 182 0 0 0 301 47 other 0 Total 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 44 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-20.04 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 14 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Oakland Hills St Westchester Dr 0.18 (mi) Recon RMS paved road to St. Andrews Dr 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction Total 301 32 other 0 Total 32 Oakmont Dr Bradley Rd 0.50 (mi) Resurf 36',0.17' AC to Thornhill Dr 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) 99/00 00/01 1 01/02 02/03 103/04 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 30 300 65 other 0 Total 65 Palomar Rd San Jacinto Rd 0.28 (mi) Resurf 241,0.17'AC to Dickenson Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Palomar St Clinton Kieth to Central 1.60 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurface AC paved road Segment is planned for widening by RBBD in future years. SB 300 cycle 9 Palomar St Central Ave to Mission Tr 1.20 (mi) 21 (ft)/ 26 (ft) . Resurf. and widen AC paved road Par Dr Thornhill Dr to Olympia Way 0.26 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Resurf 32',0.21' AC Petromat 300 31 other 0 Total 31 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 1 1 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 300 273 other 0 Total 273 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 273 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 222 other 0 Total 222 0 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 38 other 0 Total 38 Pauba Rd SH79 to De Portola Rd 2.34 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 261,0.21'RMS,0.51DG 300 408 other 0 Total 408 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 �0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 36 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 400 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 15 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Pico Ave San Jacinto Ave to Ellis Ave 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.5'0G,0.21'RMS Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 00/01 1 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 300 other Total Pigeon Pass Rd Moreno Valley C.L. 0.70 (mi) Resurf,0.25' AC to 0.7 mile North M.V.C.L 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) Coordinate with the City of Moreno Valley Pilot Dr Galley Dr 0.03 (mi) Reconstruct Surface to N'ly Galley Dr 0.03 mi 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Pilot Dr Windlass Dr 0.20 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Ply 0.20 mi 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 300 other Total 301 other Total 301 other Total 202 0 202 111 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 200 D 0 0 2 0 0 E 0 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 108 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 8 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 Port Cir Barnacle Dr to Wly 0.1 mi 0.10 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 30' RMS 301 other Total Port Royal Ave Hermitage Dr 0.60 (mi) Reconstruct Surface to Jamaica Sands Dr 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Reche Canyon Rd Arroyo Dr 0.40 (mi) Widen road to Wily 0.4 mi 26 (ft)/ 40 (ft) 301 other Total 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 32 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 189 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 300 other Total 184 396 580 E R C 25 20 3 136 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 16 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Reche Canyon Rd/ Reche Vista Dr San Bernardino Co Line to M. Valley 0.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon road and improve drainage Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction Total 300 825 other 0 Total 825 99/00 1 00/01 1 01/02 02/03 03/04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 10 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 0 Regatta Dr Spinnaker Wy 0.13 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Nallyard Dr 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 301 20 other 0 Total 20 D 0 0 2 0 E 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 17 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 River Rd Bridge Santa Ana River 0.12 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Bridge Replacement RCTD Br.# S8002, State Br#. 56C 017 Riverview Dr Limonite Ave to Ave Juan Diaz 1.87 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Reconstruct surface and widen 300 2135 other 7280 Total 9415 D E R C 80 5 20 0 5 5 20 2000 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 100 other 1060 Total 1160 Roble Dr Encino Rd 0.18 (mi) Resurf AC Paved Rd to S'ly End 21 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 300 34 other 0 Total 34 Rocky Point Dr Club View Dr to Ebb Dr 0.36 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 35' RMS Rocky Way Double Tree Dr lily 0.10 (mi) Resurf 26',0.17'AC 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 301 46 other 0 Total 46 D 0 95 0 E 0 5 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 7 E 0 1 R 0 0 C 0 26 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 2 E 1 R 0 C 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 300 14 other 0 Total 14 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 17 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Total Rouse Rd Bottlebrush Rd to Bradley Rd 0.40 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Resurf 28' AC paved road 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x S1000 78 0 78 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 00/01 01/02 102/03 103/04 D 0 6 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 71 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Sage Rd Sly 1 mi Cactus Valley to Sly 2 mi Cactus Valley 1.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Recon 26' RMS road Stockpile vertical excess 1 mi Sly Recon 0.42 mi. Flatten 3 vert. 8 2 horiz. curves Sage Rd Sly 2 mi Cactus Valley to Sly 3 mi Cactus Valley 1.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Recon 26' RMS Road Use A7-0318 excess for fill. Recon 0.33 mi. Raise 2 low areas. Sage Rd Sly 3 mi Cactus Valley to Sly 4 mi Cactus Valley 1.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Recon 26' RMS Road Recon 0.17 mi. Resurface remainder. 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Sage Rd Nly .35 mi Red Mtn Rd to Sly .65 mi Red Mtn Rd 1.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Recon 26' RMS Road Sage Rd Sly .65 mi Red Mtn Rd to Sly 1.65 mi Red Mtn Rd 1.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Recon 26' RMS Road Recon 0.4 mi. Resurface remainder. 300 other Total 300 other Total Sage Rd Sly 1.65 mi Red Mtn Rd to East Benton Rd 0.60 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf 26' RMS Road 300 other Total 240 121 361 0 0 0 240 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 437 13 450 265 0 265 250 0 250 0 0 0 437 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 265 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 0 261 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 246 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 137 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 130 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 18 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Sail Cir Lighthouse Rd 0.04 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Ely Lighthouse 0.04 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Environmental C = Construction Total 301 other Total San Jacinto Rd Fern Valley Rd 0.38 (mi) Resurf 24',0.17'AC to Glen Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 300 other Total 9 0 9 99/00 100/01 01/02 102/03 103/04 D 0 0 0 2 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 6 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 38 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Jacinto St and Hemet Street Stetson Ave to N'ly to Hemet C.L. 1.00 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) Resurf AC paved roads Partial width in the City of Hemet. Coop With City of Hemet app'd 6/29/99. 300 other Total 194 0 194 0 0 0 194 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Ana River Bridges Van Buren Blvd(2 brdg) to Market St Bridge 0.42 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Reconst bridge guardrails Total HBRR funds App'd = $567K for 3 bridges. Coop w/City of Riverside. 300 other Total 74 542 616 Santa Rosa Mine Rd Lake Mathews Dr to Ely 4.10 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26' RMS paved road Santa Rosa Mine Rd Lake Matthews/Gavilan to Ply 2.50 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Establish project scope for improvements Santa Rosa Rd Post Rd to Wly 0.98 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.5'0G,0.21'RMS W/Berms Verify scope of work and coordinate with A2-0958 in SD #1. 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 730 0 730 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 60 0 E 0 0 0 20 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C '0 0 0 0 650 300 Measure A/Western 270 0 270 0 0 0 270 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 170 10 10 0 150 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 19 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Scenic Dr Daryll Dr to Wayne Dr 0.30 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf 24',0.17'AC Coordinate with waterline work Sea Gull Dr Via Costa Brova to Flamingo Dr 0.57 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 24' RMS Seahorse Way Barnacle Dr 0.12 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Port Cir 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x S1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition = Environmental C = Construction Total 300 30 other 0 Total 30 99/00 00/01 101/02 102/03 03/04 D 0 0 2 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 28 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 49 other 0 Total 49 301 19 other 0 Total 19 Seeley Ave Arrowhead Blvd 1.00 (mi) Resurf 26', 0.26'RMS to Neighours Blvd (Rte78) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 302 158 other 0 Total 158 Shell Dr Leeward Dr 0.37 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Rocky Point Dr 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) 301 30 other 0 Total 30 Shoal Dr Beacon Dr to Rocky Point Dr 0.22 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 33' RMS 301 28 other 0 Total 28 Silver Fir Dr Cedar Glen Dr Wly 0.20 (mi) Resurf 26',0.17'AC 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 46 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 16 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 3 2 0 153 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 27 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 E 0 R 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 25 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 24 other 0 Total 24 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 21 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 20 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x S1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 00/01 1 01/02 02/03 103/04 Simpson Rd Briggs Rd 3.00 (mi) Reconst AC Paved Rd to Rte 79 0 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 300 other Total South Broadway 15th Ave to Blythe CL 0.40 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) Resurface 0.1', 38' A/C W/ petromat 302 other Total 10 840 850 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 85 Spalding Dr Cambridge Ave to Hopewell Ave 0.25 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurface 0.21', 35' RMS 301 other Total Spar Cir Galley Dr 0.04 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to NWIy Galley Dr 0.07 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) St Andrews Dr San Miquelito Dr 0.32 (mi) Recon AC Paved Road to Broadmoor Dr 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 301 other Total 301 other Total 33 0 33 13 0 13 222 0 222 St. Lucia Ct Port Royal Ave 0.03 (mi) Reconstruct Surface to Nly Port Royal 0.03 mi 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Stetson Ave Soboba St 1.50 (mi) Reconst RMS Paved Road to Fairview Ave 21 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 301 other Total 300 other Total 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 75 D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 30 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 10 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 4 0 183 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 2 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 359 0 359 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 350 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 21 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Sun City Median Improvements 0.00 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Place Stamped Concrete Fund Source Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x S1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 00/01 101/02 02/03 03/04 50 4 54 Sun City Median Improvements 0.00 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Place Stamped Concrete 300 other Total 50 0 50 7 1 0 42 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 7 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 42 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Sun City Median Improvements 0.00 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Place Stamped Concrete Sun City Median Improvements 0.00 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Place Stamped Concrete 300 other Total 300 other Total Sunfish Ln Barnacle Dr 0.11 (mi) Reconstruct Surface to Shell Dr 35•(ft)/ 35 (ft) Swingle Ave Miles Ave 0.20 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to N'ly Miles Ave 0.2 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 301 other Total 301 other Total 50 0 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 7 1 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 42 0 0 0 0 33 0 33 36 0 36 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 30 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 33 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 Sylvester Rd Mission Tr 0.21 (mi) Resurf 26',0.17'AC to Lakeview Terrace 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 300 other Total 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 2 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 22 Name Limits Length (mi) Description ( comments ) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition = Environmental C = Construction Total Thousand Palms Canyon Rd Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd 5.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen RMS paved road 301 other Total 116 0 116 99/00 00/01 101/02 02/03 03/04 D 0 0 0 0 2 E 0 0 0 0 2 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 112 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Tobago Ct Port Royal Ave 0.03 (mi) Reconstruct Surface to Nly Port Royal 0.03 mi 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 301 other Total Turner St Grand Ave SWIy 0.29 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.21'RMS on 1.010G 300 other Total 12 0 12 103 0 103 Valley Way SH60 to 34th St 0.42 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Van Buren Blvd (Northside) West of Regency Ranch to Wily 0.5 mi 0.50 (mi) 0 (ft)/ 0 (ft) Const concrete V ditch 300 other Total 300 other Total 34 79 113 124 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 9 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 2 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 100 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 93 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Via Costa Brava Vanderveer Rd 0.57 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Seaview Wy 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Vineland St Edgar Canyon Channel 0.01 (mi) Construct box culvert 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 301 other Total 300 other Total 60 0 60 403 0 403 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 57 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 52 20 0 0 0 0 0 331 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 23 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Warren Rd Stetson Ave 0.40 (mi) Resurf AC paved road to N'ly 0.4 mi 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Fund Source Total 300 other Total Wellman Rd Terwilliger Rd to Kirby St 1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen North side,0.5'DG; Resurf 26',0.21,RMS Westchester Dr San Miquelito Dr 0.54 (mi) Recon AC Paved Road to Broadmoor Dr 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x S1000 = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition = Environmental C = Construction 99/00 00/01 101/02 02/03 103/04 78 0 78 103 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 D 0 2 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 100 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 301 other Total Windward Dr 70th Ave 0.25 (mi) Resurface Paved Road to Bounty Ave 74 (ft)/ 74 (ft) Wood Rd Markham St 1.50 (mi) Resurf to Cajalco Rd 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 301 other Total 300 other Total 255 0 255 90 0 90 252 0 252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 10 3 0 242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 87 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 1 0 250 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Worsley Rd 20th Ave to Dillion Rd 0.70 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Reconstruct surface with RMS on existing base 301 other Total 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 70 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2000-2004 Fund Source Summary Page 24 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Fund Fund Source Source Name Fiscal Year (Amt x $1000) Fund Source Total Expenditure 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 (Amt x S1000) 300 Measure A/Western 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 302 Measure A/Palo Verde * Grand Totals * 6784 5974 5184 4945 4227 27114 893 181 901 828 816 3619 333 363 10 370 95 1171 8010 6518 6095 6143 5138 31904 COACHELLA VALLEY PLANS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-2000 AGENCY: City of Cathedral City PAGE 1 of 4 Item No. Project name/limits Project type Total cost: ($000's) Meas. A ($000's) FY 1999-2000 1 City Public Works Maintenance City-wide operations $ 1480.6 $ 735.4 2 Engineering Division: Signal Maintenance Engineering operations 130.0 $ 60.0 3 City Risk Management Traffic related claims & lawsuits 2296.6 $ 16.8 4 Measure A Fund Balance* for Reserve Fund* 49.3 $ 49.3 MEASURE A PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FROM PRIOR YEARS: _ 5 8682 Date Palm -Gerald Ford Intersec. Improve intersection $ 65.0 $ 65.0 6 8663 Square Mile Parking program install no parking signs & legends 13.0 9.8 7 8665 Perez Rd. extension street extension 133.7 30.0 8 8699 Dinah Shore Drainage remove dips; install drains 60.0 60.0 9 8834 Palm Cany. Widen @ Auto Park widen highway 387.3 152.7 10 8917 City-wide traffic counts traffic counts 19.0 12.0 11 8939 Widen Gerald Ford a© Date Palm widen highway 10.0 10.0 12 8941 Sidewalk projects misc. sidewalk installations 72,5 39.7 13 8946 ADA Compliance projects misc. ramps and access improvements 139.5 70.4 14 8926 Downtown Core area streets street improvements in Downtown area 1850.4 227.4 * Prudent financial planning requires the setting aside of a Measure A reserve, to cover cash flow and any fluctuations in incoming revenues. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-2000 AGENCY: City of Cathedral City PAGE 2 of 4 Item No. Project name/limits Project type Total cost: ($000's) Meas. A ($000's) FY 1999-2000 NEW MEASURE A PROJECTS OR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR CARRYOVERS 15 8916 Misc. Street Projects minor projects © various locations 66.0 20.0 16 -- W. Cathedral Bridge widen design for bridge widening 65.0 8.0 17 -- Date Palm bridge rehab. rehab bridge/install lighting 150.0 18.0 18 -- Ramon Corridor project hwy. improvements/signal modif. 225.0 225.0 19 8834 Palm Cany. Widen © Auto Park highway widening 387.3 45.0 20 8946 ADA Compliance projects ramps/access improvements 139.5 60.0 21 -- Date Palm -Varner traffic signal traffic signet 140.0 15.0 22 8665 Perez Road extension street extension 133.7 10.0 23 -- Terrace Rd/Cove Drainage storm drains /drainage improvements 85.0 65.0 24 -- Pavement Management System inventory streets & signs; software syst. 50.0 50.0 25 -- Street Slurry Projects slurry eligible residential streets 100.0 100.0 26 -- Varner-Edom Hill int. widen widen intersection 50.0 50.0 27 8695 Date Palm medians & landscape improve medians 50.0 50.0 28 -- Measure A Fund Balance* for Reserve Fund* 250.7 250.7 * Prudent financial planning requires the setting aside of a Measure A reserve, to cover cash flow and any fluctuations in incoming revenues. Total reserved for 1999-00 = $ 300,000. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-2000 AGENCY: City of Cathedral City PAGE 3 of 4 Item No. Project name/limits Project type Total cost: ($000's) Meas. A ($000's) FY 2000-2001 1 City Public Works Maintenance City-wide operations $ 1517.6 $ 757.4 2 Engineering Divislon-Signal maintenance traffic signal maintenance contracts 140.0 62.0 3 City Risk Management Traffic related claims & lawsuits 2300.0 18.0 4 Misc. Street Projects minor projects © various locations 35.2 35.2 5 Measure A Fund Balance Reserve Fund 50.0 50.0 FY 2001-2002 1 City Public Works Maintenance City-wide operations $ 1555.6 $ 780.1 2 Engineering Division -Signal maintenance traffic signal maintenance contracts 144.0 64.0 3 City Risk Management Traffic related claims & lawsuits 2300.0 20.0 4 Misc. Street Projects minor projects @ various locations 50.0 35.0 5 Street Slurry Program slurry eligible streets 130.0 100.0 9'9£ 0'091. 0'09 017Z 0'99 9'LZ9 $ 9'9£ 0'00Z 0'006 0'09£Z 0'056 £'b£91. $ pund an.iasaa SIMl s emBlla lump suoneool snopen @ s;oafad Jouiw spnsmel'9 swlelo pawls.' Drell sloe woo eoueualulew leut is mei) suopeAdo epim-AllO eoueleg pund y emseap) wel6wd timiS;awls s;oefad lean 'oslp) lueweeeuep) mew An aoueualulM leu6ls-uoppm BupeeulBu3 eoueuelulep) smiom oll4nd All0 VOOZ-000Z AA 9 9 t £ Z l L'VZ L'OZ pund an,asaa aoueleg pund y amseap) 9 0121, 0'091 smalls elgl6lle fume weiBoid Aimis leads 9 0'Ob 0'OL suoneool snopen tp) sloefoid Joulw slpafad 48948 'oslp) p 0'ZZ O'OZ£Z sllnsmel le swlelo pampa' onl;eal weweBeuelry mslu itln £ 0'99 0'051 sloes;uoo eoueuelulew leu6ls olne.il aoueua;ulew leu6ls-uolslnla BupeaulBu3 Z TEN $ t''t+651 $ suoneiado eplm-Allo eoueualulelry svom oingnd A110 1 £OOZ-ZOOZ AA (s.000$) (s.000$) 'oN y'seep) :woo Imo! adl(lloafed spwll/eweu;oafoid wall t' Jo V 30Vd 000Z-6661 Ad WVtleOtld SCINfld 1V301 ++V++ 3ZIf1SV31A1 NOISSMIWOO NOLLV1tlOdSNVt11 Jl1Nf10O 30I31:13A121 A413 le413844e3 A113 :AON3OV Agency: Prepared by: Date: UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-00 The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds 1 000's) 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $25,000 2 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay Road Maintenance $25,000 $25,000 TOTAL - $50,000 F:ITim\Misc\RCTCMSA99.doc Agency: Prepared by: Date: UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-01 The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($ 000's ) 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $ 25,000 2 93-70 Citywide pavement overlay Road Maintenance $150,000 $ 150,000 TOTAL $175,000 F:1Tim\Misc\RCTCMSA99.doc Agency: Prepared by: Date: UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2001-02 The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $ $25,000 2 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay $430,569 $430,569 TOTAL -- $455,569 F:1Tim\Misc1RCTCMSA99.doc Agency: Prepared by: Date: UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002-2003 The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost (5000's) Measure "A" Funds (5000's) 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $25,000 2 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay $144,431 $25,000 TOTAL -- $ 50,000 F:1Tim\MiscIRCTCMSA99.doc Agency: Prepared by: Date: UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003-2004 The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds 0000's) 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $25,000 2 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay Road Maintenance $25,000 $25,000 TOTAL - $50,000 F:1Tim\MiscIRCTCMSA99.doc RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-2000 Agency: CITY OF INDIO Prepared by: AMIR H. MODARRESSI Date: JUNE 25, 1999 Page 1 of 5 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost. ($1,000's) Measure "A" funds ($1,000's) 1 Highway 111 (Monroe St. to Rubidoux St.) Plan Development, R.O.W., Construction $3,538 $1,714 Engineering, Construction 2 Miles Avenue (Oasis St. to Clinton St.) Plan Development, R.O.W., Construction $ 525 $ 277 Engineering, Construction 3 Fred Waring Drive (Silverwood to Monroe St.) Plan Development, R.O.W., Construction $3,000 $ 872 Engineering, Construction 5 Jefferson Street (Highway 111 to Indio Blvd.) Plan Development, R.O.W Construction $5,200 $1,282 Engineering, Construction 6 Jefferson /1-10 Interchange Plan Development, R.O.W $1,200 $ 300 TOTAL $13,463 $4,445 OIL $ 9t76't7L17 $ bS0'0LZ $ °own 'I V,LO.L 000`3 ao!lanaisuoD M•p•N luawdoianad mid 000`9$ uotlanalsuoD tupaatOug uo!1 -analsuoD •M•p•i `luawdowoo mid (•pnlg o!pul of I [ I iCemg5m) laaalS u0sa3.13a f (I 11 XMLIS!I-I 01 VS and) '1S u0sa3l13f S b (s,000` I $) spun3 «v7„ amsraw (sA00`I$) lsoD IV101 adki,laafoad sliru iatuum laafold 6661 `SZ 3N if :aluQ Issmn chow :Xq paaudaad S ao Z aud OIQNI JO AID :,C31-108d I00Z-000Z AA b1I17aO0ad SaNflA 'IV301 212IfISV31,1I NOISSIIAINIOD NIOI NDIOdSNVII.I A.LN903 amp:lama 908 $ 9176'S£S $ 17SO'OLZ $ 001I$ 000`Z$ 190`6$ 'IVIOI ao!lanllsuoD M•0's luawdolanaa usid uotlanllsuoD `fu!aaatOug uo!1 -analsuoD •M•0•-H luawdolanaa mid ('PAIR o!PuI of l t l XEmt !u) hails uosaa33af (II I Aunu9$!H of bS and) -Is uosiajja f S b (MOO' 1$) sPun3 „V„ amoNAI (s,000` IS) lsop poi adX1 patbid sl!uu vaueN laafozd •oN Mali 6661 `SZ dN flf :also ISSMINVGOW 'H 21IIAIV Paardaad S 3o £ a$ud ZOONOOZ Ad INV11902Id SUNfld 1VJO7 «d„ �2[tISd�L1i NOISSILM100 AINI903 adIS2IaARI °tam d0 AID :,Cauand 698 $ 000`9$ 1V101 uoptuisuoD pug 2upaaui8ua uoponalsuoD 8E8'I6S $ 000`9$ "isivo•N `u8!sap 8uuaaur8ua luuu a8umplawi 0I-1/ uosiaijaf 9 80I'L $ 0 $ uoganaasuoD moll Iuawdolanaa uuld uopon.ijsuoD tuuaau!Sug uo!) (Rai owl,' of 1 I I /(EA tiSm) pans uosiajjaf S tWOLZ $ 0 $ -anilsuoa .M.O'i luawdolanaQ uuld (tit �EA1y8iH oij bS a^d) -1$ uomajjaf b (s,000` I $) sPun3 0,000` IV 'old „y„ ainsuoTAI lsop -poi acbq pafoad sliwryawum pafoid wail 6661 `SZ aNflf :aiu4 ISSMIAVQOIN H THWY :AQ pandacd S 30 a2ud £00Z-ZOOZ Ad WV2IOO2Id SaAlfld 1V3011 HIIIISV311 NOISSIWW03 NOI.LVI110421SNIVILL A.LPII1O3 3aIS113AI2i OIGNI AO AID :X3u0SV S£6 $ S£tr $ 005 $ 0081,1S 000`tr$ 008`01$ 1V101 uo9ormsuoj pug 2tunauOua uopnaisuoD uopon.usuoD pug 2upaourSua uopnaisuoj "m•o•N `118isap5u9aau!Sua Igu!3 aSuutpialui 0I-I/ uosaalPf - Attgg3a31u1 01iruosaajjaf L 9 0,000` 1$) spun3 „y„ aanseaN 0,000` I $) iso0 moi adAi pafoad slruui/awuN. paroad 'off toad 6661 `SZ gNiflf :amci ISSHIIIIdaOIA1 'H IRIAN pandaad S 3o S aaud 1700Z-£00Z A3 10(119021d SQAInd 1V301 «d„ axnsvaty NOIssINIAiOD NOI. NIIIOASNVILL AINI103 naISIIHARI OICIN130 AlID :/i01102d CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 1 OF 5 RJNDING PROPOSED PROJECT LIST SOURCES TRAFFIC SIGNALS: • Shadow Mountain & Portola Avenue • Fairway & Portola Avenue ' Hovley Lane East & Warner Trail STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: • Major street sidewalks ' Major street landscaping Cook Street: Country Club Drive to Fred Waring Drive ' Fred Waring Drive Bridge Widening at the Palm Valley Channel Highway 111: Larkspur to I.W. City Limits Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge at the San Pascual Channel and Widening • Fred Waring Drive Widening ' CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange PARKS & RECREATION Civic Center Amphitheater • Civic Center Park Restroom • PDCC Neighborhood Park South Parking Lot ' No. Side Regional Park • Bikeway Construction • Youth Center Land Purchase For Regional Park DEVELOPMENT & LAND PURCHASE ' El Paseo and Hwy 111 Land Development North Sphere Property - Golf Course • North Sphere Property - Other Purposes HOUSING • Home Improvement Project - Rehabit For Sale • Acquistion of 40 acres site DRAINAGE • Monterey / Hwy 74 & El Paseo to Hwy 111 • Cook Street - Joni to 42nd • Cook Street - Gerald Ford to Union Pack RR • Monterey Avenue - Hwy 111 to Whitewater • Nuisance water iniet/drywell program COMMUNITY GARDENS 'Community Gardens at East side of San Pablo TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY Traffic Signal Fund 234 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Year 2010 Fund 400 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 RCTC Reimbursement Measure A Fund 213 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 Park Fund 430 Park Fund 430 Park Fund 430 Park Fund 430 Park Fund 233 Park Fund 233 Park Fund 233 RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 RDA PJ#2 Fund 851 RDA PJ#2 Fund 851 CURRENT YR FY 99-00 FINDING �i- $ 500,000 1,500,000 4,163,940 3,036.060 Housing Fund 870 Housing Fund 870 / Loan from City Drainage Fund 232 Drainage Fund 232 Drainage Fund 232 Drainage Fund 420 Drainage Fund 420 Construction Tax FD 231 Measure A Fund 213 Construction Tax FD 231 Drainage Fund 232 FD 233 Traffic Signals FD234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Drainage Fund 420 �» FH.,d 430 S 150,000 150,000 150,000 $ 250,000 $ 725,000 400,000 500,000 2,000,000 800,000 6,800.000 250,000 550,000 120,000 440,000 557,200 100,000 100,000 25,000 659,650 1,500,000 7,200,000 3,300,000 325,000 1,860,000 95,100 487,800 175,000 200,000 300,000 300,000 PRIOR YR R/NDING $ 30,469,750 $ 3,700,000 "" 300,000 757,900 225,000 450,000 975.000 500.000 1 667 ^rn PROPOSED PROJECT LIST RDA CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 1 OF 5 CURRENT YR FUNDING FY 99-00 PRIOR YR SOURCES FUNDING FUNDING RDA PJ#1 FD850 RDA PJ#1 FD851 RDA PJ#1 FD854 Housing Fund 870 12,713,940 6,336,060 659,650 2,185,000 S 21,894.650 TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES 5 30,469.750 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 2 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: ' Hovley Lane West & Portola Avenue ' Casbah & Hovley Lane East STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: ' Major street sidewalks ' Major street landscaping * Frank Sinatra Drive: Rancho Mirage City Limits to Cook Street. * Portola Avenue: Alessandro Drive to Fred Waring Drive * San Pablo Avenue: COD Dwy, To Magesia Falls Drive ' Fred Waring Drive: Highway 111 to Cook Street Hovley Lane: Waterway to Oasis C.C. • CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange DRAINAGE • Nuisance water inlet/drywell program ' Area B - NW Comer of Country Club and Washington St. TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY RDA FUNDING SOURCES Construction Tax FD 231 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Year 2010 Fund 400 Construction Tax FD 231 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 Drainage Fund 420 RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 Measure A Fund 213 Construction Tax FD 231 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Drainage Fund 420 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 FUNDING $ 150,000 150,000 $ 250,000 725,000 650,000 800,000 400,000 1,500,000 700,000 250.000 300,000 1,350,000 $ 7,225.000 $ 3,400,000 $ 800,000 150,000 975.000 300,000 250,000 1,350.000 TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES $ 7,225,000 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED F1VE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 3 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: • Gerald Ford Drive & Portola Avenue STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: ' Major street sidewalk • Major street landscaping • Gerald Ford Drive: Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive: Cook Street to Gerald Ford Drive (widening, median, curb & gutter) ' CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange DRAINAGE ' Nuisance water inlet/drywell program TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY RDA TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES Construction Tax Fund 231 Year 2010 Fund 400 Year 2010 Fund 400 Construction Tax Fund 231 Measure A Fund 213 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 Drainage Fund 420 Measure A Fund 213 Construction Tax FD 231 Year 2010 Fund 400 Drainage Fund 420 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 Year 2010 Fund 400 FUNDING $ 150,000 250,000 725,000 475,000 850,000 250,000 100,000 $ 2.800.000 $ 850,000 625,000 975,000 100.000 250.000 $ 2.800.000 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 4 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING TRAFFIC SIGNALS: ' Hoviey Lane East & Oasis Club Drive Construction Fund 231 $ 150,000 STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: • Major street sidewalk program Year 2010 Fund 400 250,000 Major street landscaping Year 2010 Fund 400 725,000 ' Portola Overcrossing at 1-10 Feasibility Study Measure A Fund 213 100,000 ' CVAG payments for I-10 Interchange RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 250,000 DRAINAGE TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY RDA $ 1,475,000 Measure A Fund 213 $ 100,000 Construction Tax FD 231 $ 150,000 -- Year 2010 Fund 400 975,000 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 250,000 TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES $ 1,475,000 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 5 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING TRAFFIC SIGNALS: Frank Sinatra Drive & Gerald Ford Drive Traffic Signal Fund 234 $ 150,000 STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: ' Major street sidewalk program Year 2010 Fund 400 250,000 ' Major street landscaping Year 2010 Fund 400 750.000 ' NB Monterey Avenue Widening - Gerald Ford Drive to Dinah Shore Drive Measure A Fund 213 2,600,000 ' Dinah Shore - Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue Measure A Fund 213 5.600.000 DRAINAGE TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY Measure A Fund 213 _. Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 $ 9,350,000 $ 8,200,000 150,000 1,000,000 TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES $ 9,350.000 Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM- 99/00 City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Transportation & Grants Mgr.) JUNE,1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Measure A Program Page 1 of 2 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS (FY 99/00) PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1 * Residential Street Improvements (Special Districts) Various Locations (Annual) $215,000 $130,415 2* Mesquite Ave. (Desert Way — Demuth Park) Street Widening — south 1/2 210,000 210,000 3* Gene Autry Tr./Highway 111 Intersection Widen, add turn lanes (Hwy. 111 Corridor) 801,000 210,000 4* Farrell Drive and Tamarisk Road Traffic Signal ( T- Intersection) 102,000 102,000 5* Mid -Valley Parkway (Phase-2) Widen Gene Autry Tr./ Ramon Rd. 550,000 275,000 6* Traffic Safety Project Various Locations (Per Accident Study) 25,000 25,000 7* Mid -Valley Parkway Median Landscaping ISTEA (TEA) Grant (Local 20% Match) __ 252,000 31,000 8* Heritage Trail Bikeway Project ISTEA (TEA) Grant (Local 20% Match) 480,000 120,000 9* Missing Links Sidewalks & Bikeways (Phase 2) ISTEA (TEA) Grant (Local 20% Match) 320,000 80,000 10* SB-821 (98/99) Sidewalks (Various Locations) SB-821 Grant 98/99 (Local Match) 77,395 30,958 11 * Palm Canyon Drive Reconstruction (Ramon- Alejo) RCTC STIP Grant (Local Match) 717,000 217,000 *Continued from Prior Year(1998/99) 1999/2000 SUBTOTALS $ 3,249,395 $1,359,373 Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM- 1999/2000 City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Transportation & Grants Mgr.) JUNE, 1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Measure A Program Page 2 of 2 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS (FY 99/00) PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS * 98/99 Projects (see previous page) * Continued to 99/00 $3,249,395 $1,359,373 12* Farrell Dr. & E. Palm Canyon (98/99 Project) Street Widening 20,000 20,000 13* West Valley Interchange Study (98/99 Project) Multi -a ency CVAG Study (local match) 20,000 20,000 14* Crack Filling (Contract Crews- 98/99 Project) Grind, Clean and Fill Roadway Cracks 125,000 125,000 15 SB-821 (99/00) Vista Chino Sidewalk/Bikeway SB-821 Grant 1999/00 (Local Match) 61,527 18,458 16 Calle Encilia (Ramon- Arenas) Street Widening 85,000 85,000 17 Slurry Seals (Contract Crews)- 99/00 City Wide Slurry Seal Coats on Street Surfaces 400,000 400,000 18 Crack Filling (Contract Crews)- 99/00 City Wide Grind, Clean and Fill Roadway Cracks 125,000 125,000 19 Bridge Repairs (Annual)-99/00 Misc. Repairs- Various Bridges 50,000 50,000 20 Araby Drive Flood Control- Palm Canyon Wash Install Drain Pipes for Nuisance Water 150,000 150,000 21 Gene Autry Tr. Sidewalk/Bikeway (Ramon-V.Chino) RCTC STP 99/00 Grant (Local Match) 317,000 36,360 22 Indian Canyon Dr. Widen-4 Ln.(Gamet-RR Bridge) RCTC STP 99/00 Grant (Local Match) 200,000 23,000 23 Belardo Bridge/Roadway (Ramon- S. End Belardo) Federal PLH-D 99/00 Grant (Local Match) 4,083,000 250,000 New 99/00 Projects (No.15 thru No. 23 above) SUBTOTAL 5,471,527 1,137,818 (Combined Total 98/99 Continued +New 99/00) 1999/00 TOTALS $8,885,922 $2,662,191 Y :\Data\Doc\MeasA 1999-2000.Tb1 Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM- 2000/2001 City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Transportation & Grants Mgr.) JUNE,1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Measure A Program Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS (2000/01) PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Slurry Streets (Contract Crews) 500,000 500,000 2. Annual Rubber Chip Seal Coat Rubber Chip (Contract Crews) 200,000 200,000 3. Residential Street Improvements Various Locations (Annual) 50,000 50,000 4. *Indian Canyon/ I-10 Interchange (CVAG Estimate) *New Interchange (Increase to 4 Lanes) * 15,262,000 1,000,000 5. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) Various Bridges 50,000 50,000 * * Seek Federal Grant + Regional Measure A Funds YR. 2000/01 TOTALS $16,062,000 $1,800,000 Y AData\Doc\MeasA 1999-2000.Tb1 Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM- 2001/2002 City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Transportation & Grants Mgr.) JUNE, 1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Measure A Program Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Slurry Streets (Contract Crews) 500,000 500,000 2. Annual Rubber Chip Seal Coat Rubber Chip (Contract Crews) 200,000 200,000 3. Residential Street Improvements Various Locations (Annual) 50,000 50,000 4. *Ramon Road Widening (Sunrise Way to El Cielo) *Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes *1,871,000 935,500 5. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) Various Bridges 50.000 50,000 *Requires 50% CVAG Regional Measure A Funds 2001/02 TOTALS $2,671,000 $1,735,500 YAData\Doc\MeasA 1999-2000.Tb1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM- 2002/2003 Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: Robert L. Mohler (Transportation & Grants Mgr.) Date: JUNE,1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Measure A Program Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE “A“ FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Slurry Streets (Contract Crews) 500,000 500,000 2. Residential Street Improvements Various Locations (Annual) 50,000 50,000 3. *Ramon Road Bridge Widening (Whitewater Wash) *Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (CVAG Est.) * 11,302,000 2,825,500 4. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) Various Bridges 50,000 50,000 * *50/50 Split w/Cathedral City/ 50% Regional Mea.A 2002/03 TOTALS $11,902,000 $3,425,000 Y:\Data\DocNeasA 1999-2000.Tb1 Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM- 2001/2002 City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Transportation & Grants Mgr.) JUNE, 1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Measure A Program Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A,, FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Slurry Streets (Contract Crews) 500,000 500,000 2. Residential Street Improvements Various Locations (Annual) 50,000 50,000 3. Major Thoroughfare ARHM Overlay 350,000 350,000 4. *Gene Autry Trail & Interstate 10 (CVAG Estimate) *Interchange (widen from 2 to 6 lanes) * 12,228,000 1,000,000 5. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) Variou* Bridges 50,000 50,000 *Seek Federal Grant + CVAG Regional Measure A $ 2003/04 TOTALS $13,708,000 $2,480,000 YAData\ Doc \MeasA 1999-2000.Tb1 - 00020$ - OCOO s 101130T eti21:u04,11awoO &XL :IRIS ONES • II odOH QM 01 WPM I+KW fKNww+dwl 's R+ws/RNM uoieso- TiTsolP11:1 . coo NIX ' Om'ams -Wend MN :101101001103 ex :INN alibi era •► waul P+l4NPUn4UPp11 MOM N NA0+10I1 MINH - ITPNIAMI UM IN Lit w.u,awmw . ..w„ M PKW1V0M0 0401 MOTES MUCKS Wiwi o0N : * OM 11018 131100 00P1M LoRMroW 0l odWl 908 �4 aN V 1004184m0 - INg 09D'Om cool= lined 6B2I:0oMId0R0 (09 VMS C 2 0011001P040111unlRMd 013I116010,411 01 od0H 406 Pirtre aP155 • A 101/00 6821:0 e6re:v4s '031IMPIEPTivvvvituse P0019 1 0W3 07 MID M0003G aqInaginagi S1N3W3AOWW4113311111 SpaINV400 101i) XV13Nid (01t1 XVI MONO V 3MnSV31N 111N01031:1 Wb W4 oP1wY0N wNrqmA A0N3ov 1N31NdO13A30311 . bed 11,701' r MOM biL) XVl SVo IOW XVl 31013011 Ile) - ONnd 7V113Nio 1100 1O3f011d 1V101 1031'0Nd 'ON pasodoid 000Z-666T E3 - SIN 142A0 is it ZYZIaYO anoaoxa 351MIN OHONVU 30 1113 -�..,oi -3-er'SY3w h N 0 oo171S 030'0619 FOILS moat moo carom mums 000999'09 1610111114 d:Qm t> 0D0O0I9 000O609 1$10061 OO9 :9N18161103 COP al4S 09t11611 •d"D Sumo Pr 1o9 kin PPrW PPPPO `•t.►i 000'914 ODOSI IIS WHO COS : 00110I0110 COS :VMS DOD 1m MIMI WM WOW APO GPM 4►= PIVEZIgnitliteggraMayalg 01 Inl moon Pw4d-+!d wdopAso • MOSES coma Musa en' :9011111O9D0 MK aEIS ' • 6 WirtROXIMISMUlairanien apaubled O110LAP 000 COS OOD'05f lased WOW YZI DYAD w pouNouroppv PluPWoop 'a Atiopu w oil -‘931WEERSOM DOO'COIS OOD'OO►f UMW mot :001100003 en :Pm zeesr 1r!! win HID PPM of MoD 1 NNW WOJ16l14111 Pans- IMEMIR O 3.0Xt • OOOVCS UC►ed OM :000000=3 EOM UqS WOW Ira )119d sANAlnS ANND of MoD Wain tuo4tomainouuaasa avemsP18 '9 Pw Pull euPPed - iTTADMR $1143111103 Itt) XY1 MU (Ant) XV1. 2001961 Y 3a119Y3W 1tlNO10311 lull Wei •PNVNaN AqpimiN4m A3N3Or Lar1.1013A30341 Intl 1r001; r r. 3111S IN Mill Xvl 9YO (nil XYl 3SN32I1 (toil GNU 11/631430 Iwo 133POLd 1Y101 133ro1►d 'ON �'993 am'8ilts iflii/1 ant vorptduaO afi/S VsiS 94I110/'d'0 Nom 1 i I 1i041014) Ana ass won all '9I 000'09IS Om'OSIS WNW wiz M0119011023 an WWI SS113 / WO (ua/aYIParl VOV u100141116 lbws lustudnb3 puxu9/afd) quwreaidt 11 ywd alwasi YN► 'SI 1)911/d T'90016 mo d 0m'00013 COSC033 am'am'n am00B'is aaabae`Ls -rolorains ss•6Z a vsiusweAcudury iambi P�wdoid am'Om' is Om'm9' is 000'009tS (iO►O/) 0n i moINIduiDO OON 4148 seers 11'V ►i nMs w bi w�.1d•a pwuwsrd WS WNbWeAD3IPA /11KOWI am 000 Zs 0m'0mZs (Mini 0019 AlOIINIdU100 OO/I WEIS ES111e/'63 00,90 so+MV m7 01 MVO PM° "24WTI "wad UwwIP3 AN 'Si SII 0111PuncIeglPurl-> Pqqa 000'0m'ss 0001:0013 (DIU) mI mopt+gwoO MI VMS C£16/ Ya lad glouI■+a MORN +PIS ISIDN IWO CIS ZI Isun IO-IP3W5 S133fOli! LIMO z1N390103 Intl XV13idi (Ott) XV13O0199 v 32111SV311 1V7401O39 kW lotd sPrwbN Jelemovism A318OV 1N3W41O13113039 lossl wool V 3a tivari biz) XVl OVO Roil XVl 3sN3o11 lisil 0911d 1Va3N3O two 133fOad 1V1O1 133fOad 'ON �c0Z COINS coons 0 coo'oos'cs 030011 '13 ;,� 000'>atts Donau 'mystic ozs'occ'cts CTittQa aos•►o¢t =WO Impel fern :ixiamodueco OO►L 4MS ♦SIVS0 'd•7 'LL uoIMluMu puN sold solisliodsulu1IRO 100 RAN! Olwd OVAO um) rm Z6ZS 7 KO•Z¢¢t rm7113 (tt/0d 'wool Own ' 1Z w se on. qmbiod 01wd bl OM 1L Val - OVWO 4103f Oliefy 1LL0 000'3Bts ODO'009t 000'ODc'tt COM= CCOOPL•ZS 1V101'9ftf =Doss MOO= (SPIOSI ooO moselds03 00/1 4AAS aSt-ONl'd'O uaprussuo0 wed nun AuunS to 101 Nived iaddn 0000CS MOMS ILKosI 6BS : uolPIdwo0 64/L : its= .rnwlou3 Wall PH An 'si 000'oes motes lootod -«+aMouwow vov woo0•4 pr 1°M AIM WIPP Mawr. r. USDA. MOM uu Pm* Pus MQIP.. us P uslIsMsul )00)J-I ! PH HIO in oovcce'ts acoax'ts fsnod cool -uapodwoO oat :i+4S Lst-cog'd'O uopaulw+o0 wQwa40 1Puno0 kJ *Li f1N3wwo0 had XV1371M (Ks) XVI MOROI v aarniv3w 1VN0103t1 ItLd We sa1•wx•N maMM+ewA ►, 1N3wdOl3A3O3a 0 Neel evocn. �� Ivtz1 SVC (tot) 3s 3n11 MO 1 a3N30 ism 1'TV101d 103r0Hel 'ON • CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FY 2000-2002 NO. PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST GENERAL FUND 11011 UCENSE TAX (1031 OAS TAX 12241 IrmaS111i A LOQAci Mel , REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Whkewater Nartlnlds 13701 13721 REGIONAL MEASURE A FIRE TAX (2161 BRIDGE TAX (2301 COMMENTS 1. Highway 111 - Water & Sewer Improvements from Fairway to Bob Hope R.A. /99-30 11,000,000 $1,000,000 2. t) Highway 111 - Median Island and Parkway Landscaping from Fairway to Indian Trap 1800,000 1800.000 . 3. � Frank Sinatra Mime -Widening Northside from Bob Hope to Monterey Avenue C.P. /99-152 1600 000 /200 fX10 j F p'�.00� 1250.000 CVAG Regional Project 4. Citywide Annuli Road Slurry and ' Asphalt Commas Overlay Program 1300,000 1150010 Tam* , 5. Monterey Avenue/1-10 Interchange CVAG Reimbursement 150.000 150,000 5th of 10 Payments 5. Design Zone 3 Storm Drain System, Bob Hope and Country Club Intersection 1100,000 1100,000 7. Highway 111 Bus Shelters 13) 1120,000 $85,000 35.000 00130011911940100aW: Vo 000.091 01 000'0091 000'0011 000'009'1i (J011'�.il 000'006/ 000'999'lt 000'9911 000'0L1.91 91V101 , At i 1 'n30/OVA2 09/09 000'09 000'0991 000'0099 unwornL/ Won unworn inORM y1u10 wa1 u011u11r0 "Nils • °APO INMO 'Ol • 000'00✓►1 000'OOV 11 1AU(1 spy 1K1u6111 11 A11Ao1{ won 0ulPunoi6upu0 Antnn - ww1Av A1111)u011 •g • LQ99:001 „a 000'0911 000'001$ 000'004t 10uu1 AN3 yuwS 01 A1101011 10011 uommivi14111 1uouuAld • Timmy AuquON t+s ILLS) IOLE) 991841011 N11M1"NW1 MEV 191i1 V r.. Mal Itiil 1E011 11011 1900 XVl XVl 3n11SV3N N3 A90V 11 M XVl XVl 011111 103POnd S1113111903 30019E Nil 1VN010311 iN31W013A303n V VIMIVIA 9V0 3SN3O11 1V931130 1V101 103P0621 'ON mQsit 000'00Z. 000'091 000119C1 unload ANDA0 'O V Pug PDS ADDIS PIPAA113 1 Pwoott 000.001i 000vott .04S 4N110 of p1Oi PP1o° '413P1Po41sJ Vu.M psoN AMu"'tannsu000N •9 000'0911 01)0'091$ Itl WP AAA 111•11s4S sn9 •9 stustuAsd 01 10 419 000'091 000'091 tuoworrpw}oy sEuw}awtt1101-Uon»Ay Auoluoyl •t 0011'f11 000'0011 000'001 t 000'0014 sours° I►. onus of odoH qog woad uonot}Mslo10111 poY1Mod DAPO WO AMP03 N 'C 000 0091 000'009$ auk*mown Asrpod Pw PPP! DPID111 - l l l AmsD1011-1 'Z 0001100'L1 000'0001$ scion slog 01 01a1 wlPul Y1Of1 oluowonoduq m onS - 111 AorA004 ' 1 S1N31NMIOO I9/L) ONV1XNVd Iota XVl 300199 V 311119V3Y1 1VN0103N (LLt1 IOLC) sPIs4u0N 1otoMoN4NN AON3DV 1N3MW013A3O3111 .Isco . 1V301 r11 Anima WLL) XVl gyo It01) XVl 3111p3f1 IWO 0N11i 1V113N90 1900 lO3rONd 1V101 103rolld 'ON CO -TOOL BSI - SINRAIRAO1WHI Waadx3 a$soaoxa ROVNIK OHaNYU AO MD NI1N• 01••••200.0 — 1000'0011 000'091_ 000'099'1t 000009'E1 r 000'00911 000'0091 ` 000'00C1 000'0911 000'0071S ono' ng/'n11 91V101 000'00911 ° r 000'00911 20 gn13 Assuno3 pun sdoH Ip q08 u0 upiO 111/01S C vuo2 lannsuo3 1 N ' l t • 000'09/$ 000'09LS 000'0091 000'009'11 smugly sot of NsAsO sluouNAoldWl teens - psod Nowell '01 uoltlsr+00s Ausdoid 10l 000'0091 000'0091 000'00L1 000'0091 000'009' 11 PNIM Pla n° 01 911,149 quad uag quausmuchut puspl VeIPnW Pus uwS • SAVO 1117P0 '8 000'0011 000'0011 uostaglgsysu tunusnsd lot nomad wed sstsNlspyM '8 S1N3PI9103 19111 ONVVI11Vd (Ott) XVl 9001118 V 3tlt1SV31N 1VN010911 ILLE) IOLEI sppquON nlsmg14M A3N30V 1N31Vd013A30311 r Ina, wool V S , NO9V1111 11121 XVl 8V0 1E011 XVl 3SN3011 1100 ONM -Imm0 1SOO 103fOtld 1V101 103f011d 'ON e CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FY 2002-2003 NO. PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST GENERAL FUND 11011 LICENSE TAX 11031 GAS TAX 12241 �• - A "/ 1.0C16. Me * REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Whitewater NerthaWe 13701 13721 REGIONAL MEASURE A BRIDGE TAX 12301 COMMENTS 1. Monterey Averred-10 Interchange Reimbursement to CVAG 150,000 150.000 7th Payment of 10 2. Gerald Ford • Landscape Median Islands Ito Bob Hope to Monterey 1750,000 1750,000 3. NO � Citywide Slurry and A.C. Overlay P►opram 1350,000 1200,000 -ill i0.000 4. Bob Hope - Landscape Median Islands 1950,000 1650,000 1300.000 from Frank Sinatra to Dinah Shore TOTALS 12,100.000 _ 11,400,000 1300,000 1200,000 Ii ikoott , e , 150,000 Y,/uC.Yr.., MY11C„N NI11NM.I041MIb00. 000'091 F0001101 000.00Z$ - 000'00E1 000'00t't1 000'000'91 SW101 MMMWA 000'00E1 000'00►'1,1 000'0001S of mPpeS t! stuMUMadwl 14,64S Oult uwVID Pus •4+n0 y 'E • 000'p,tl. 000'00EI 0001/9E/ tutdoy Agwnp'O'V pus AMMS oP}MA1f0 •L Ol to tuewAod gm 000'091 000'091 DVAO of tuetuasmgwuy rbue4ptotul OI-UttnuonV Awa1u0Y1 •l S1N31/0403 10EL) XV13D01118 V 31M1SV3W 1VN010311 IiLEI 10[EI 0PP4110N NHNNtPIM AON30V 113Wd013A30311 1. NW iv= ,7,, V 31NNV311. NMI, XVl SW) 1E011 XVl 3SN3Or1 I1011 ONM 1mmo 1800 103fOW 1V101 1331"OW 'ON 1,00L-E0OL IA - SSH$w$nOHOU 7111.100 Oasoaoxa IMMIX OHJNVII CIO ALIO PALO VERDE PLAN •AennuosgoH uo pe;eaol dnueala uogieaoipAy ay; ul pepnlaul saliadoid ;o aaqu:nu a6iel ay; o; enp peAelap 6ulaq sl ;aa(oid ay; Ll;ua uno 1• i wa;1 pun; o; sp000mul Nt/„ °inseam' 6ul;elnwnaoe s1 413 :310N „ 'Obi Iglu;eyy ;leydsd 10/6661 ii '9Z£ lIennuosgoH g y;L/aue, tun pe;aa;oid 00/8661 06 '08 leeS d1113 g 6od 10/9661 6 • i iZ s;uawanoidwl IlamAelltl Z0/9666 8 •gi s;uawanoidwl mennaplS 00/L661 L 'On (sum( g io; a/I/000`0S) (vav) stimuli ileyolaayM 60/L666 9 'SOS (Z) signals m46*o1/01-1 00/8661 S '89b uol;ezlleuNg uplano1/y;bi 00/8661 b '99 s;uawanoiduwl a6euleia Aempeam 00/6661 £ '00Z - s;uawanondu l auissoi3 pummel' kuutuosgoH 60/L666 Z '000`0 (10afoid 000`000`£S) Alm 6upoeul6u3/uol;annsuoaai AennuosgoH ZO/L666 is. i (9.000`is) saNru AMU Minsd3W S11W1113WdN 133f OZId 'ON W311 i ;o i 96ed 6661 `£Z Gene :a;ea pagioo ueleH :A8 pa�edaad ay;L1910 A113 :llaua6�/ 1700Z-000Z MV3J11d0S1� Wd219021d SaNnA 1d00.1 ..V.. 321i svmni NOISSIIAIIN00 NOI1d1210dSNd211 AINf100 3a1SH3A121 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 T0: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Measure "A" Resident Engineer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-9832 for Ninyo & Moore to Provide On -Call Material Testing Services for Measure "A" At the October 8, 1997 meeting, the Commission authorized the award of Contract No. RO-9832 for Ninyo & Moore to provide On -Call Material Testing Services for Measure "A" Project construction work scheduled for the 1997/1998 fiscal year. The initial Contract with Ninyo & Moore was for a base amount of $119,700 and a contingency amount of $23,940. At the July 8, 1998 meeting, the Commission authorized the award of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-9832 for Ninyo & Moore to provide On -Call Material Testing Services to support project construction work anticipated for the 1998/1999 fiscal year. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-9832 was issued for a base amount of $91,760. At the Nov. 11, 1998 meeting, the Commission authorized the award of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-9832 for Ninyo & Moore to provide addition services to support a limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Elsinore Subdivision for an amount not to exceed $9,245. The following is a summary of the contract actions taken to -date: Date Description Base Work Extra Work Total 11/24/97 Original Agreement $119,700 $23,940 $143,640 06/17/98 EW #1 - Additional Testing Sound Wall #35 $4,000 ($4,000) $143,640 07/08/98 Addendum #1 $91,760 $0 $235,400 11 /12/98 Addendum #2 $9,245 $0 $244,645 01 /12/99 EW #2 - West Corona Repairs $4,000 ($4,000) $244,645 04/01/99 EW #3 - Additional Testing South Side Platform $427 ($427) $244,645 04/02/99 EW #4 - Additional Testing Phase I Sound Walls $15,000 ($15,000) $244,645 CURRENT CONTRACT $244,132 $513 $244,645 TOTAL INVOICED TO DATE $222,495 FUNDS REMAINING $21,637 There is now a need to Amend Contract No. RO-9832 to authorize Ninyo & Moore to provide On -Call Construction Material Testing Services for the up -coming Measure "A" Construction Projects in the 1999/2000 fiscal year. Staff has been working with Ninyo & Moore to finalize the scope of work required to complete the projects remaining from Amendment #1 along with developing a new scope of work for the additional Measure "A" Projects and Tasks scheduled. Staff has completed negotiations with Ninyo & Moore and is in agreement with the attached Ninyo & Moore Scope of work and associated costs for the following scheduled work: Project Start Proposed Budget I. West Corona Overcrossing Aug. 1999 $ 28,637 II. La Sierra Overcrossing Aug. 1999 $ 28,637 III. Rt 91 Phase II Sound Wall #98 Oct. 1999 $ 21,889 IV. Porphyry "Y" Additional Testing Aug. 1999 $ 19,659 99/00 Budget $ 98,822 Remaining 98/99 Funds $ 21,637 Additional Funds Requested $ 77,185 The proposed scope of work and cost estimates received from Ninyo and Moore are attached for your review. The RCTC standard consultant amendment will be utilized subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review and approval. Financial Assessment Project Cost $77,185 (Base) + $22,815 (Extra) = $100,000 Source of Funds Measure "A" :<:>.;:. :: :vv:::::,v • •r'•:.v •::::::.:,r,.:,}:v.v:: x.... .•...•... .:.......:...:. v.....:.. r.::: n;p};•;} . •:..• :•:: �.:...:... �:•f.{• :.vi•ii;•i}p'.i ::{ •.. .:!....:........................:.......:v:?v.:•.......::::..•....:::"r,2•:.wnv:vhv:.:v:: •;;`}>ii•::X':{{:};%i:G:J:w,v;: :•: h::::}: Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Financial Assessment Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the award of Amendment #3 to Contract No. 9832 to Ninyo & Moore to provide On -Call Construction Material Testing Services for the projects identified for a base amount of $77,185 and an additional extra work amount of $22,815 for a total not to exceed Amendment value of $100,000. The Extra Work contingency will be utilized as authorized by the Executive Director. The RCTC standard consultant amendment will be utilized subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review and approval. o& oars Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770G Mr. Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services West Corona Metrolink Station Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Corona, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed West Corona Metrolink Station Pedestrian Overcrossing Project in Corona, California. The services presented herein are based on the information presented in the project plans, specifications, contract documents, and our conversations with personnel from your office. This proposal supercedes our previous Pro- posal Number P-03770E, dated June 24, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the proposed project is located north of the 91 Freeway, at the south- west corner of the intersection of Auto Center Drive and the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. The project consists of improvements to the existing Metrolink station in Corona, including the con- struction of a new pedestrian overcrossing and associated site work and utilities. The proposed project is scheduled to begin construction in March 1999. Based on the contract documents, it appears that the construction will have a duration of approximately 4 months (120 working days assumed). Based on the information reviewed, the project will be constructed in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. 9272 Jeronimo Road • Suite 123A • Irvine, California 92618-1914 • Phone (949) 472-5444 • Fax (949) 472-5445 Oakland San Diego Los Angeles Ontario Las Vegas (510) 893-2551 (619) 457-0400 (213) 488-51 1 1 (909) 947-1588 (702) 433-0330 Riverside County Transportation Commission. June 16, 1999 West Corona Metrolink Station Proposal No. P-03770G PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and project specifications. Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. • Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork operations. Our field services will include field density testing of fill soils during excavation and grading for the overcrossing foundation, as well as during placement of structure backfill and utility trench backfill at the site. We have assumed that approximately 80 hours of field services will be requested during fill placement. • Field sampling and testing of concrete, as requested by RCTC, including casting of cylinders for compressive strength and testing for slump, air content, unit weight, and temperature. We anticipate sampling and testing of concrete for the overcrossing foundation, lightweight con- crete deck, and crash walls, including the CIDH piles. We have assumed that approximately 60 hours of field services will be requested. • Performance of off -site batch plant inspection and sampling for concrete during construc- tion, as requested by RCTC. We have assumed that approximately 24 hours of plant inspection services will be requested. • Performance of materials inspection services, including the inspection of concrete rein- forcement, field and shop welding, and high -strength bolting, as needed. We have assumed that approximately 80 hours of field inspection services will be requested. • Performance of laboratory testing of the fill, concrete, and reinforcing steel in accordance with the contract documents, specifications, and as requested by RCTC. • Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, overex- cavation recommendations, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any). • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. • Preparation of a final report summarizing the results of our field and laboratory testing. 03770G.DGC 2 /`/inyosr*mire Riverside County Transportation Commission. June 16, 1999 West Corona Metrolink Station Proposal No. P-03770G • Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and materials testing services. FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attached Break- down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), as well as the laboratory test rates presented in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately $28,600 (twenty-eight thousand six hundred dollars). A detailed break- down of our estimated fee is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports of field obser- vations and/or field memoranda. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer KSY/CAP/JV/av Attachments: Table 1 - Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 - Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 - Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee 03770G.DOC 3 ,yinyo&*owe Riverside County Transportation Commission West Corona Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770G TABLE 1;'- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE Field Observation and Testing Services Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 140 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 3,220.00 Field Technician/Plant Inspector 24 hours @ $ 21.00 /hour $ 504.00 Field Inspector 80 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 1,840.00 Subtotal $ 5,564.00 Report Preparation Principal Engineer/Geologist 2 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 92.00 Project Engineer/Geologist 16 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 560.00 Technical Illustrator 8 hours @ $ 19.00 /hour $ 152.00 Word Processing/Reproduction 4 hours @ $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 Subtotal $ 874.00 Project Coordination, Meetings, and Technical Field Assistance Principal Engineer/Geologist (2 hrs/month) 8 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 368.00 Project Engineer/Geologist (12 hrs/month) 48 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 1,680.00 Subtotal $ 2,048.00 Direct Labor Indirect Cost @ 167% Total Direct plus Indirect Cost Profit @ 10% Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit Other Direct Costs Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 244 hours @ $ 3.00 /hour $ 8,486.00 $ 14,171.62 $ 22,657.62 $ 2,265.76 $ 24,923.38 2,982.00 732.00 TOTAL $ 28,637.38 03770g.xla /`/inyo&/Hoore Riverside County Transportation Commission West Corona Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770G TABLE 2 - LABORATORY TESTING; ESTIMATED FEE Soil and Aggregates ASTM D 422-63 Sieve Analysis ASTM D 1557-91 Maximum Density CT 227 Cleanness Value ASTM D 2419-91 Sand Equivalent Subtotal 12 tests @ $ 70.00 /test $ 840.00 4 tests @ $ 120.00 /test $ 480.00 3 tests @ $ 110.00 /test $ 330.00 6 tests @ $ 65.00 /test $ 390.00 $ 2,040.00 Concrete and Grout ASTM C 39-94 Concrete Cylinders 40 tests @ $ 15.00 /test $ 600.00 Subtotal $ 600.00 Reinforcing Steel ASTM A 615 Bend Test, #11 or Smaller 4 tests @ $ 16.00 /test $ 64.00 ASTM A 615, Tensile Test, #11 or Smaller 8 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 160.00 Subtotal $ 224.00 Structural Steel ASTM A 370 Bend Test 2 tests @ $ 19.00 /test $ 38.00 ASTM A 370, Tensile Test up to 100 kips 4 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 80.00 Subtotal $ 118.00 TOTAL $ 2,982.00 03770g.xls *ago&/Hoore Riverside County Transportation Commission. West Corona Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770G $ VI : iS VAB RAT. TES TAG Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Soils and Aggregates D 1140-92 — — D 4318-95 D 1883-94 — — D 2435-90 CT 202 CT 206 CT 207 CT 204 — CT 227 CT 417 & CT 422 CT 219 $50.00 $55.00 $65.00 $90.00 $300.00 $110.00 $80.00 $175.00 200 Wash Absorption of Coarse Aggregate Absorption of Fine Aggregate Atterberg Limits California Bearing Ratio (CBR) (Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content Test Not Included) Cleanness Value of Coarse Aggregate Chloride and Sulfate Content Consolidation Consolidation - Time Rate D 2435-90 CT 219 $15.00 per increment Crushed Particle, Percent — CT 205 $90.00 Direct Shear - Undisturbed D 3080-90 CT 222 $200.00 Direct Shear - Remolded D 3080-90 CT 222 $250.00 Durability Index — CT 229 $120.00 Expansion Index D 4829-95 UBC 18-2 $110.00 Expansion Potential (Method A) D 4546-90 — $95.00 Expansive Pressure (Method C) D 4546-90 — $115.00 Hydrometer Analysis D 422-63 CT 203 $100.00 Los Angeles Rattler C 131 CT 211 $130.00 Maximum Density AASHTO C (Modified) — AASHTO T-180-86 $170.00 Maximum Density A, B and C/ D 1557-91 CT 216 $120.00 California Impact Test & D 698-91 Moisture Only D 2216-92 CT 226 $12.00 Moisture and Density D 2937-94 — $25.00 Organic Impurities C 40 CT 213 $50.00 Permeability, CH D 2434-68 CT 220 $190.00 pH and Resistivity — CT 643 $80.00 Relative Mortar Strength of PCC Sand — CT 515 By Quote (Specific Gravity and Absorption Tests Not Included) R-value D 2844-94 CT 301 $195.00 Sand Equivalent D 2419-91 CT 217 $65.00 Sieve Analysis D 422-63 CT 202 $70.00 Soundness C 88 CT 214 $145.00 03770G.DOC 1 &*mire Riverside County Transportation Commission. West Corona Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770G G 1tftt. F 1 `E S lR ST Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Specific Gravity, Coarse Aggregate C 127-88 CT 206 $55.00 Specific Gravity, Fine Aggregate C 128-93 CT 207 $75.00 Triaxial Shear, C.D. — CT 230 $170.00 per point Triaxial Shear, C.U. D 4767-88 CT 230 $160.00 per point Triaxial Shear, U.U. D 2850-95 CT 230 $100.00 per point Unconfined Compression - Undisturbed D 2166-91 CT 221 $70.00 Unconfined Compression - Remolded D 2166-91 CT 221 $120.00 Wax Density D 1188-89 — $50.00 Asphalt Concrete Bulk Specific Gravity — CT 308 $90.00 CKE — CT 303 $150.00 Extraction, %Asphalt — CT 382 $120.00 Film Stripping D 1664 CT 302 $120.00 Gradation on Extracted Sample D 422-92 CT 202 $80.00 Hveem Maximum Density D 1561-92 CT 375 $135.00 Hveem, S-value D 1560 CT 304 & 366 $170.00 Marshall Maximum Density D 1559-89 — $135.00 Marshall Stability and Flow D 1559 — $190.00 Moisture Vapor Susceptibility — CT 307 $250.00 Percent Swell — CT 305 $150.00 Concrete and Masonry Compressive Strength, Concrete C 39-94 CT 521 $15.00 Compressive Strength, Concrete Block C 140 — $35.00 Compressive Strength, Grouted Prisms E 447 — $140.00 Compressive Strength, Lightweight Concrete C 495-91a — $15.00 Compressive Strength, Mortar or Grout — UBC 24-22 & $15.00 UBC 24-28 Concrete Flexural Strength C 78-94 CT 523 $40.00 Pavement Coring — CT 531 $60.00 Prestressed Steel Modulus of Elasticity (Prestressing Wire) — — $110.00 Tensile Test, Strand A 416 — $85.00 Tensile Test, Wire A 421 — $50.00 03770G.DOC 2 *nap sffinore Riverside County Transportation Commission. West Corona Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770G ................ ................ ................ ;STD Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Reinforcing Steel Bend Test, # 11 Bar or Smaller Tensile Test, # 11 Bar or Smaller Tensile Test, # 14 Bar Tensile Test, # 18 Bar Structural Steel Bend Test Hardness Test, Brinell Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. to 200,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 200,000 Lbs. to 300,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 300,000 Lbs. to 400,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 400,000 Lbs. to 600,000 Lbs. Welded Specimens Tensile Test, Welded # 11 Bar or Smaller Tensile Test, Welded #14 Bar Tensile Test, Welded # 18 Bar Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced Bar Roofing and Fireproofing Fireproofing Density Roofing Tile Break -Up Strength Roofing Tile Absorption A 615 A 615 A 615 A 615 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 AWS D1.4 AWS D1.4 AWS D1.4 AWS D1.4 UBC 43-8 UBC 32-12 UBC 32-12 $16.00 $20.00 $56.00 $77.00 $19.00 $25.00 $20.00 $26.00 $42.00 $79.00 $126.00 $35.00 $63.00 $84.00 $95.00 $35.00 $43.00 $43.00 03770G.DOC 3 /y ing°&/Moore Inv & oars iir*-atbilialigt /V Geotechnical and Environmental Silences Consultants June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770H Mr. Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services La Sierra Metrolink Station Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Riverside, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed La Sierra Metrolink Station Pedestrian Overcrossing Project in Riverside, California. The services presented herein are based on the information presented in the project plans, specifications, contract documents, and our conversations with personnel from your office. This proposal supercedes our previous Proposal Number P-03770F, dated June 24, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the proposed project is located south of the 91 Freeway, on the north side of Indiana Avenue between La Sierra Avenue and Tyler Street. The project consists of im- provements to the existing La Sierra Metrolink station, including the construction of a new pedestrian overcrossing and associated site work and utilities. Based on the contract documents, it appears that the construction will have a duration of ap- proximately 4 months (120 working days assumed). Based on the information reviewed, the project will be constructed in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. 9272 Jeronimo Road • Suite 123A • Irvine, California 92618-1914 • Phone (949) 472-5444 • Fax (949) 472-5445 Oakland San Diego Los Angeles Ontario Las Vegas (510) 893-2551 (619) 457-0400 (213) 488-51 1 1 (909) 947-1588 (702) 433-0330 Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 La Sierra Metrolink Station Proposal No. P-03770H PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and project specifications. Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. • Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork operations. Our field services will include field density testing of fill soils during excavation and grading for the overcrossing foundation, as well as during placement of structure backfill and utility trench backfill at the site. We have assumed that approximately 80 hours of field services will be requested during fill placement. • Field sampling and testing of concrete, as requested by RCTC, including casting of cylinders for compressive strength and testing for slump, air content, unit weight, and temperature. We anticipate sampling and testing of concrete for the overcrossing foundation, lightweight con- crete deck, and crash walls, including the CIDH piles. We have assumed that approximately 60 hours of field services will be requested. • Performance of off -site batch plant inspection and sampling for concrete during construc- tion, as requested by RCTC. We have assumed that approximately 24 hours of plant inspection services will be requested. • Performance of materials inspection services, including the inspection of concrete rein- forcement, field and shop welding, and high -strength bolting, as needed. We have assumed that approximately 80 hours of field inspection services will be requested. • Performance of laboratory testing of the fill, concrete, and reinforcing steel in accordance with the contract documents, specifications, and as requested by RCTC. • Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, overex- cavation recommendations, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any). • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. • Preparation of a final report summarizing the results of our field and laboratory testing. 03770H.DOC 2 /'/Ingos more Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 La Sierra Metrolink Station Proposal No. P-03770H • Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and material testing services. FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attached Break- down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), as well as the laboratory test rates presented in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately $28,600 (twenty-eight thousand six hundred dollars). A detailed break- down of our estimated fee is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports of field obser- vations and/or field memoranda. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer KSY/CAP/JV/av Attachments: Table 1 - Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 - Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 - Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee 03770H.DOC 3 lyinyo&/Moore Field Technician/Plant Inspector Field Inspector Report Preparation Principal Engineer/Geologist Project Engineer/Geologist Technical Illustrator Word Processing/Reproduction Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03774H TABLE 1 BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE Field Observation and Testing Services Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 140 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 3,220.00 24 hours @ $ 21.00 /hour $ 504.00 80 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 1,840.00 Subtotal Subtotal $ 5,564.00 2 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 92.00 16 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 560.00 8 hours @ $ 19.00 /hour $ 152.00 4 hours @ $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 $ 874.00 Project Coordination, Meetings, and Technical Field Assistance Principal Engineer/Geologist (2 hrs/month) 8 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 368.00 Project Engineer/Geologist (12 hrs/month) 48 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 1,680.00 Subtotal $ 2,048.00 Direct Labor $ 8,486.00 Indirect Cost @ 167% $ 14,171.62 Total Direct plus Indirect Cost $ 22,657.62 Profit @ 10% $ 2,265.76 Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit $ 24,923.38 Other Direct Costs Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 244 hours @ $ 3.00 /hour 2,982.00 732.00 TOTAL $ 28,637.38 03770h.xis /1/inyos more Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770H TABLE 2 LABORATORY TESTING ESTIMATEDFEE Soil and Aggregates ASTM D 422-63 Sieve Analysis ASTM D 1557-91 Maximum Density CT 227 Cleanness Value ASTM D 2419-91 Sand Equivalent Subtotal 12 tests @ $ 70.00 /test $ 840.00 4 tests @ $ 120.00 /test $ 480.00 3 tests @ $ 110.00 /test $ 330.00 6 tests @ $ 65.00 /test $ 390.00 $ 2,040.00 Concrete and Grout ASTM C 39-94 Concrete Cylinders 40 tests @ $ 15.00 /test $ 600.00 Subtotal $ 600.00 Reinforcing Steel ASTM A 615 Bend Test, #11 or Smaller 4 tests @ $ 16.00 /test $ 64.00 ASTM A 615, Tensile Test, #11 or Smaller 8 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 160.00 Subtotal $ 224.00 Structural Steel ASTM A 370 Bend Test 2 tests @ $ 19.00 /test $ 38.00 ASTM A 370, Tensile Test up to 100 kips -4 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 80.00 Subtotal $ 118.00 TOTAL $ 2,982.00 03770h.xls 4finyo lykooce Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770H I LE 3 GGHV ?11M: Si OAT STllrl Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Soils and Aggregates D 1140-92 — — D 4318-95 D 1883-94 — — D 2435-90 CT 202 CT 206 CT 207 CT 204 — CT 227 CT 417 & CT 422 CT 219 $50.00 $55.00 $65.00 $90.00 $300.00 $ 110.00 $80.00 $175.00 200 Wash Absorption of Coarse Aggregate Absorption of Fine Aggregate Atterberg Limits California Bearing Ratio (CBR) (Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content Test Not Included) Cleanness Value of Coarse Aggregate Chloride and Sulfate Content Consolidation Consolidation - Time Rate D 2435-90 CT 219 $15.00 per increment Crushed Particle, Percent — CT 205 $90.00 Direct Shear - Undisturbed D 3080-90 CT 222 $200.00 Direct Shear - Remolded D 3080-90 CT 222 $250.00 Durability Index — CT 229 $120.00 Expansion Index D 4829-95 UBC 18-2 $110.00 Expansion Potential (Method A) D 4546-90 — $95.00 Expansive Pressure (Method C) D 4546-90 — $115.00 Hydrometer Analysis D 422-63 CT 203 $100.00 Los Angeles Rattler C 131 CT 211 $130.00 Maximum Density AASHTO C (Modified) — AASHTO T-180-86 $170.00 Maximum Density A, B and C/ D 1557-91 CT 216 $120.00 California Impact Test & D 698-91 Moisture Only D 2216-92 CT 226 $12.00 Moisture and Density D 2937-94 — $25.00 Organic Impurities C 40 CT 213 $50.00 Permeability, CH D 2434-68 CT 220 $190.00 pH and Resistivity — CT 643 $80.00 Relative Mortar Strength of PCC Sand — CT 515 By Quote (Specific Gravity and Absorption Tests Not Included) R-value D 2844-94 CT 301 $195.00 Sand Equivalent D 2419-91 CT 217 $65.00 Sieve Analysis D 422-63 CT 202 $70.00 Soundness C 88 CT 214 $145.00 03770H.DOC 1 *agoslmore Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770H SGCDUF F;ABIti;x"xt'YET'G Laboratory Test ASTM Other Price Per Procedure Designation Method Test Specific Gravity, Coarse Aggregate C 127-88 CT 206 $55.00 Specific Gravity, Fine Aggregate C 128-93 CT 207 $75.00 Triaxial Shear, C.D. — CT 230 $170.00 per point Triaxial Shear, C.U. D 4767-88 CT 230 $160.00 per point Triaxial Shear, U.U. D 2850-95 CT 230 $100.00 per point Unconfined Compression - Undisturbed D 2166-91 CT 221 $70.00 Unconfined Compression - Remolded D 2166-91 CT 221 $120.00 Wax Density D 1188-89 — $50.00 Asphalt Concrete Bulk Specific Gravity — CT 308 $90.00 CKE — CT 303 $150.00 Extraction, %Asphalt — CT 382 $120.00 Film Stripping D 1664 CT 302 $120.00 Gradation on Extracted Sample D 422-92 CT 202 $80.00 Hveem Maximum Density D 1561-92 CT 375 $135.00 Hveem, S-value D 1560 CT 304 & 366 $170.00 Marshall Maximum Density D 1559-89 — $135.00 Marshall Stability and Flow D 1559 — $190.00 Moisture Vapor Susceptibility — CT 307 $250.00 Percent Swell — CT 305 $150.00 Concrete and Masonry Compressive Strength, Concrete C 39-94 CT 521 $15.00 Compressive Strength, Concrete Block C 140 — $35.00 Compressive Strength, Grouted Prisms E 447 — $140.00 Compressive Strength, Lightweight Concrete C 495-91a — $15.00 Compressive Strength, Mortar or Grout — UBC 24-22 & $15.00 UBC 24-28 Concrete Flexural Strength C 78-94 CT 523 $40.00 Pavement Coring — CT 531 $60.00 Prestressed Steel Modulus of Elasticity (Prestressing Wire) — — $110.00 Tensile Test, Strand A 416 — $85.00 Tensile Test, Wire A 421 — $50.00 03770H.DOC 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770H �)L Ell ST Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Reinforcing Steel Bend Test, #11 Bar or Smaller Tensile Test, # 11 Bar or Smaller Tensile Test, #14 Bar Tensile Test, # 18 Bar Structural Steel Bend Test Hardness Test, Brinell Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. to 200,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 200,000 Lbs. to 300,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 300,000 Lbs. to 400,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 400,000 Lbs. to 600,000 Lbs. Welded Specimens Tensile Test, Welded # 11 Bar or Smaller Tensile Test, Welded # 14 Bar Tensile Test, Welded #18 Bar Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced Bar Roofmg and Fireproofing Fireproofmg Density Roofing Tile Break -Up Strength Roofing Tile Absorption A 615 A 615 A 615 A 615 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 AWS D1.4 AWS D1.4 AWS D1.4 AWS D1.4 UBC 43-8 UBC 32-12 UBC 32-12 $16.00 $20.00 $56.00 $77.00 $19.00 $25.00 $20.00 $26.00 $42.00 $79.00 $126.00 $35.00 $63.00 $84.00 $95.00 $35.00 $43.00 $43.00 03770H.DOC 3 /1/inyo&/y►oore i .tom► air in o& oars Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770I Mr. Carl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 Riverside, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 project in Riverside, California. The services presented herein are based on the information pre- sented in the project plans and Special Provisions, and our conversations with personnel from your office. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the proposed project is located adjacent to south side of Route 91 from Jackson Street to the east approximately 532 meters. The improvements will include the construction of a new sound wall 532 meters in length and relocating a concrete lined channel 482 meters in length. The sound wall will be constructed between approximate Station Nos. 10+00 and 15+32. The walls will be supported by cast -in -drilled -hole (CIDH) piles. Minor grading is anticipated during construction of the sound wall and concrete channel. Based on the information reviewed, the sound wall will be constructed in accordance with the 1995 Caltrans Standard Specifications and project Special Provisions. Based on our experience on similar proj- ects we assume the construction duration for this project will be approximately 3 months (90 workings days). 9272Jeronimo Road • Suite 123A • Irvine, California 92618-1914 • Phone (949) 472-5444 • Fax (949) 472-5445 Oakland San Diego Los Angeles Ontario Las Vegas (510) 893-2551 (619) 457-0400 (213) 488-51 1 1 (909) 947-1 588 (702) 433-0330 Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 Proposal No. P-03770I PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. • Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork operation. Our field services may include field density testing of fill soils during minor grading at the site. We have assumed that approximately 40 hours of field services will be requested during fill and backfill placement. • Field sampling, and testing of fresh concrete as requested by RCTC, including casting cylin- ders for compressive strength and testing for slump, air content, unit weight, and temperature. We anticipate sampling and testing concrete for the CIDH piles, pile cap (footing) and barrier. After the initial 24 hours of curing, samples will be transported to our laboratory. We have assumed that approximately 50 hours of field services will be requested. • Field sampling of masonry block, mortar, and grout placed at the site. Sampling and testing of the masonry block sound wall is anticipated to be performed on a periodic basis during construction. Therefore, we estimate approximately 60 hours of mortar and grout field sam- pling services will be requested. • Performance of off -site batch plant inspection and sampling for concrete, asphalt, and mortar during construction, as requested by the Resident Engineer. We have assumed that approxi- mately 20 hours of plant inspection and material sampling services will be requested. • Performance of laboratory testing of the fill, concrete, masonry block, mortar, grout, asphalt, and reinforcing steel in accordance with the guidelines and frequencies outlined in Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual and, in particular, as requested by the Resident Engi- neer. • Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, and re- moval of unsuitable materials (if any). 03770Ldoc 2 A finyo&/toore Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 Proposal No. P-03770I • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. In addition, we will maintain project files in accordance with Caltrans filing procedures for the project. • Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and materials testing services. FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attached Break- down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), as well as the laboratory test rates presented in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately $21,900 (twenty-one thousand nine hundred dollars). A detailed break- down of our estimated fee is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports of field obser- vations and/or field memoranda. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE ^/-0t,r-4e Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer AR/CAP/JV/av Attachments: Table 1 - Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 - Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 - Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee 037701.aoc 3 &/ytoore Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770I TABLE 1- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATEDFEE Field Observation and Testing Services Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 150 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 3,450.00 Field Technician/Plant Inspector 20 hours @ $ 21.00 /hour $ 420.00 Subtotal $ 3,870.00 Report Preparation Principal Engineer/Geologist Project Engineer/Geologist Technical Illustrator Word Processing/Reproduction Subtotal 2 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 92.00 16 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 560.00 8 hours @ $ 19.00 /hour $ 152.00 4 hours @ $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 874.00 Project Coordination, Meetings, and Technical Field Assistance Principal Engineer/Geologist (2 hrs/month) 6 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 276.00 Project Engineer/Geologist (12 hrs/month) 36 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 1,260.00 Subtotal $ 1,536.00 Direct Labor $ 6,280.00 Indirect Cost @ 167% $ 10,487.60 Total Direct plus Indirect Cost $ 16,767.60 Profit @ 10% $ 1,676.76 Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit $ 18,444.36 Other Direct Costs Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 170 hours $ 3.00 /hour $ 2,934.00 $ 510.00 TOTAL $ 21,888.36 oanoi.xls lying°&/more Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770I TABLE 2 LABORATORY<TESTING ESTIMATED FEE' Soil and Aggregates Sieve Analysis (CT 202) Maximum Density (CT 216) Cleaness Value (CT 227) Sand Equivalent (CT 217) Concrete, Grout and Mortar Compressive Strength Reinforcing Steel Bend Test (ASTM A 615) Tensile Test (ASTM A 615) Subtotal Subtotal 4 tests @ $ 70.00 /test $ 280.00 8 tests @ $ 120.00 /test $ 960.00 2 tests @ $ 110.00 /test $ 220.00 2 tests @ $ 65.00 /test $ 130.00 $ 1,590.00 80 tests @ $ 15.00 /test $ 1,200.00 S 1,200.00 4 tests @ $ 16.00 /test $ 64.00 4 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 80.00 Subtotal $ 144.00 TOTAL $ 2,934.00 03770ixIs lyinyo&Ntoore Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770I Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Soils and Aggregates D 1140-92 — — D 4318-95 D 1883-94 CT 202 CT 206 CT 207 CT 204 — $50.00 $55.00 $65.00 $90.00 $300.00 200 Wash Absorption of Coarse Aggregate Absorption of Fine Aggregate Atterberg Limits California Bearing Ratio (CBR) (Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content Test Not Included) Cleanness Value of Coarse Aggregate — CT 227 $110.00 Chloride and Sulfate Content — CT 417 & CT 422 $80.00 Consolidation D 2435-90 CT 219 $175.00 Consolidation - Time Rate D 2435-90 CT 219 $15.00 per increment Crushed Particle, Percent — CT 205 $90.00 Direct Shear - Undisturbed D 3080-90 CT 222 $200.00 Direct Shear - Remolded D 3080-90 CT 222 $250.00 Durability Index — CT 229 $120.00 Expansion Index D 4829-95 UBC 18-2 $110.00 Expansion Potential (Method A) D 4546-90 — $95.00 Expansive Pressure (Method C) D 4546-90 — $115.00 Hydrometer Analysis D 422-63 CT 203 $100.00 Los Angeles Rattler C 131 CT 211 $130.00 Maximum Density AASHTO C (Modified) — AASHTO T-180-86 $170.00 Maximum Density A, B and C/ D 1557-91 CT 216 $120.00 California Impact Test & D 698-91 Moisture Only D 2216-92 CT 226 $12.00 Moisture and Density D 2937-94 — $25.00 Organic Impurities C 40 CT 213 $50.00 Permeability, CH D 2434-68 CT 220 $190.00 pH and Resistivity — CT 643 $80.00 Relative Mortar Strength of PCC Sand — CT 515 By Quote (Specific Gravity and Absorption Tests Not Included) R-value D 2844-94 CT 301 $195.00 Sand Equivalent D 2419-91 CT 217 $65.00 Sieve Analysis D 422-63 CT 202 $70.00 Soundness C 88 CT 214 $145.00 037701.doc 1 *nig&Attars Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770I TABLE C TIUL t7► `1� R 8 RS T t.S <.;:: <..:;::::::::*i.;:. <.;:. ::::::, ....-::.:.;:.;:.:.:;..;:.;:.;.;:::<.;.;:<.;<.;:.:<.>::;::;:.;:.;:...,.:::.i...,:::.....>::»:. >;>;:>;::;:::<:<::*:*::::::... Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Specific Gravity, Coarse Aggregate C 127-88 CT 206 $55.00 Specific Gravity, Fine Aggregate C 128-93 CT 207 $75.00 Triaxial Shear, C.D. — CT 230 $170.00 per point Triaxial Shear, C.U. D 4767-88 CT 230 $160.00 per point Triaxial Shear, U.U. D2850-95 CT 230 $100.00 per point Unconfined Compression - Undisturbed D 2166-91 CT 221 $70.00 Unconfined Compression - Remolded D 2166-91 CT 221 $120.00 Wax Density D 1188-89 — $50.00 Asphalt Concrete Bulk Specific Gravity — CT 308 $90.00 CKE — CT 303 $150.00 Extraction, %Asphalt — CT 382 $120.00 Film Stripping D 1664 CT 302 $120.00 Gradation on Extracted Sample D 422-92 CT 202 $80.00 Hveem Maximum Density D 1561-92 CT 375 $135.00 Hveem, S-value D 1560 CT 304 & 366 $170.00 Marshall Maximum Density D 1559-89 — $135.00 Marshall Stability and Flow D 1559 — $190.00 Moisture Vapor Susceptibility — CT 307 $250.00 Percent Swell — CT 305 $150.00 Concrete and Masonry Compressive Strength, Concrete C 39-94 CT 521 $15.00 Compressive Strength, Concrete Block C 140 — $35.00 Compressive Strength, Grouted Prisms E 447 — $140.00 Compressive Strength, Lightweight Concrete C 495-91a — $15.00 Compressive Strength, Mortar or Grout — UBC 24-22 & $15.00 UBC 24-28 Concrete Flexural Strength C 78-94 CT 523 $40.00 Pavement Coring — CT 531 $60.00 Ptcahessed Steel Modulus of Elasticity (Prestressing Wire) — — $110.00 Tensile Test, Strand A 416 — $85.00 Tensile Test, Wire A 421 — $50.00 037701.doc 2 /y/in eAltoore Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770I �L ......................... EDU .......................... ........................... ........................... IAttokiir ;ST 11 Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Reinforcing Steel Bend Test, 411 Bar or Smaller Tensile Test, 411 Bar or Smaller Tensile Test, 414 Bar Tensile Test, 18 Bar Structural Steel Bend Test Hardness Test, Brinell Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. to 200,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 200,000 Lbs. to 300,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 300,000 Lbs. to 400,000 Lbs. Tensile Strength, Up to 400,000 Lbs. to 600,000 Lbs. Welded Specimens Tensile Test, Welded 411 Bar or Smaller Tensile Test, Welded 414 Bar Tensile Test, Welded 418 Bar Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced Bar Roofing and Fireproofing Fireproofmg Density Roofing Tile Break -Up Strength Roofing Tile Absorption A 615 A 615 A 615 A 615 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 A 370 AWS D1.4 AWS D1.4 AWS D1.4 AWS D1.4 UBC 43-8 UBC 32-12 UBC 32-12 $16.00 $20.00 $56.00 $77.00 $19.00 $25.00 S20.00 $26.00 $42.00 $79.00 $126.00 $35.00 $63.00 $84.00 $95.00 $35.00 $43.00 $43.00 037701.doc 3 *ago&/ltoore � Mowe Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P-03770J Mr. Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Scope of Work and Estimated Costs to Conduct a Subsurface Investigation Porphyry "Y" to Four Miles South Corona, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore recently prepared a Draft Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the subject property dated April 6, 1999. In this report, Ninyo & Moore recommended conduct- ing a further investigation adjacent to two off -site potential sources of contamination to obtain a higher confidence level that impacted soil and/or groundwater exists at the site from the Corona Disposal and former Thakar Aluminum properties. For budgetary purposes, groundwater beneath the site is expected to occur at depths ranging from approximately 40 to 50 feet below the ground surface (bgs). PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES Four soil borings will be drilled at approximately equal distances between each other along the property line between Corona Disposal and the site. The first boring will be drilled to groundwa- ter to assess the actual depth (expected to be approximately 50 feet bgs). The remaining three borings will be drilled to a depth immediately above groundwater, and a hydropunch sampling de- vice will be advanced into groundwater to collect a sample. Soil samples will be collected at depths of approximately 5-foot intervals beginning at approximately 5 feet bgs and continuing to groundwater. Two soil samples per boring will be randomly selected for chemical analyses. tJp to eight soil samples and three groundwater samples will be analyzed for California Code of Regula- tions (CCR) metals, aluminum, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in general accordance 9272 Jeronimo Road • Suite 123A • Irvine, California 92618-1914 • Phone (949) 472-5444 • Fax (949) 472-5445 Oakland San Diego Los Angeles Ontario Las Vegas (510) 893-2551 (619) 457-0400 (213) 488-51 1 1 (909) 947-1588 (702) 433-0330 Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 Porphyry "Y" to Four Miles South, Corona Proposal No. P-03770J with EPA test numbers 6010/7000, and 8260, respectively. One trip blank will also be analyzed for the above constituents. Three soil borings will be drilled along the property line between the former Thakar Aluminum facility and the site. Soil and groundwater samples will be collected from each boring in the same manner described above. Up to two soil samples per boring, and one groundwater sample per boring will be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), total petroleum hy- drocarbons as diesel fuel (TPHd), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in general accordance with EPA test numbers 8015 (modified) and 8020. One trip blank sample will also be analyzed for the above constituents. Costs will in- clude disposal of the soil cuttings as non -hazardous waste. Following receipt of the laboratory results, a report will be prepared documenting the findings and presented to the client. COMPENSATION Our fee for the proposed scope of services is $19,658.59. Work will be performed on a lump sum basis. See Table 1 for a breakdown of the costs. If you have any questions or comments regarding this proposal, please call the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE , G-77 , Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer PAR/DLR/JV/av Attachment: Table 1 — Breakdown of Estimated Fee Distribution: (2) Addressee 2 4finyo&/more Riverside County Transportation Commission Porphyry "Y" to Four Miles South, Corona TABLE 1- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE June 16, 1999 Proposal No . P-03770J SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION -PORPHYRI"Y" Task 1 - Soil and Groundwater Sampling Project Geologist Staff Geologist (See also Other Direct Costs) Task 2 - Laboratory Analyses (See also Other Direct Costs) Task 4 - Report Preparation Principal Geologist Project Geologist Staff Geologist Technical Illustrator Word Processor/Reproduction 6 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 210.00 36 hours @ $ 22.00 /hour $ 792.00 Subtotal 1,002.00 2 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 92.00 6 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 210.00 24 hours @ $ 22.00 /hour $ 528.00 5 hours @ $ 19.00 /hour $ 95.00 5 hours @ $ 17.50 /hour $ 87.50 Subtotal $ 1,012.50 Direct Labor $ 2,014.50 Indirect Cost @ 167% $ 3,364.22 Total Direct Plus Indirect Cost $ 5,378.72 Profit @ 10% $ 537.87 Total Direct, Indirect and Profit $ 5,916.59 Other Direct Costs Task 1: Miscellaneous Equipment and Supplies $ 200.00 Field Vehicle (24 hrs. @ $3.00/hr.) $ 72.00 Drill Rig $ 5,950.00 Disposal of Soil Cuttings (non -hazardous) $ 2,500.00 Task 2: Sample Analyses $ 5,020.00 Subtotal $ 13,742.00 TOTAL REVISED ESTIMATED FEE $ 19,658.59 03770J.xts 1 lyinyo&Attars RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Smart Call Box - Budget Adjustment The Commission approved the Smart Call Box Pilot Program in September 1997. The project was deployed in February through April 1999. The Commission received the Pilot Program evaluation at their June 2, 1999 meeting and approved further deployment of Smart Call Boxes. Due to an oversight, staff did not include the Smart Call Box Pilot Program in the 1998-99 budget or the mid -year budget revision. This action requests approval of an adjustment to the 1998-99 Budget to include $65,000 of unallocated Service Authority for Freeway Emergency (SAFE ) funds for the Smart Call Box Pilot Program. This oversight was recently discovered and staff cannot process payment for this work until a budget adjustment is in place. Financial Assessment Project Cost $65,000 Source of Funds SAFE ::fir;}}::} ::.... S.. E.. hr:}} Included in Fiscal Year Budget N Year Included in Program Budget N Year Programmed 1998-99 Approved Allocation N Year of Allocation 1998-99 Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a FY 1998-99 Budget Adjustment to include $65,000 of unallocated SAFE funds to support the Smart Call Box Pilot Program. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14,1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1999-00 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations In April the Commission notified the cities, the county, and local school districts that an estimated $753,603 would be available for programming in FY 1999-00 through the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. This program is funded by an allocation of 2% of the total Local Transportation Funds (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the State and funds carried over from prior years. Carryover funds available this year were $18,392 from higher than estimated revenues last year and from previously programmed projects which either did not require the full allocation due to actual costs being lower than the estimated costs or were subsequently abandoned by the applicants for various reasons. The Commission received 34 proposals for projects from 19 agencies requesting a total of $1,516,101 (Attachment I). An evaluation committee consisting of three members from the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee and three members from the Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the proposals on June 10, 1999. All of the applicants were invited to the meeting and requested to present their proposal(s) to the Committee. The proposals were evaluated and ranked based upon the Commission adopted scoring criteria (Attachment II). Eleven projects are recommended for funding as indicated on the attached schedule (Attachment III). There will not be sufficient funds to fully meet the City of Corona's SB 821 request for their Grand Circle Sidewalk Improvement Project (#11). We have talked with city staff and they could reduce the scope of their project to react to the reduced funding level should the Commission approve the funding list as proposed. Financial Assessment Project Cost $ 771,995 . Source of Funds TDA Article 3/ Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities :s :, ,"m' A !!' 's .....•.„. ..,.:..A:4.....:.. ..... w-: ii:ii' ., i.*. A$i.„:::: ,„:.:iig&:i: A$:g: .:. •:, , :- :..,A. ....i:::: ,..„: ..A, :i:'. ', 3" :: :, i:,n: c :. i;..:.. A ::: : ...: Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 99/00 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 99/00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable Y BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the FY 1999-00 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program allocations as shown on the attached schedule. SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 1999-00 Attachment I Agency /_Project Total SB 821 Funds Local COSt Requested Funds Banning Ramsey St. SW & ramps $60,000 S30,000 $30,000 Beaumont 8th St. & 4th St Bike Lane $113,120 572,944 $40,176 Blythe Chanslorway SW $20,125 $14,087 $6,038 Canyon Lake Goetz Road SW $30,000 $15,000 $15,000 Cathedral City Dwntwn Ped. Bridge -Phase II $135,000 $97,000 $38,000 Corona Chase Dr/EI Cerrito Bikeway $242,000 $193,600 $49,000 Grand Blvd Circle SW Improv. $114,440 S91,520 $22,880 Total $356,440 $285,120 $71,880 Hemet Santa Fe Ave SW & Ramps $75,000 $60,000 $15,000 Devonshire SW & Ramps $40,000 $30,000 $10,000 Total $115,000 $90,000 $25,000 Indio Lido Ave/Shadow Ave SW Imp $54,791 $47,644 $7,147 La Quinta/Indio Jefferson St. Bike Lane S37,534 $34,122 $3,412 Moreno valley School Area Accessibility $25,000 $12,500 $12,500 Accessibility Enhancements $25,000 $12,500 $12,500 Brodiaea Ave SW $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 Indian St SW $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 Bay Ave SW $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total $140,000 $70,000 $70,000 Murdela Washington Ave SW $176,000 $88,000 $88,000 Palm Desert Magnesia Falls SW & Bike Path $94,050 $47,025 $47,025 SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 1999-00 Attachment I Agency __1 Project Palm SloSirngs Vista Chino SW & Bike Way Perris Indian Ave & Orange Ave SW Ranc_hO Mirage Country Club Drive Path Riverside Brockton Ave SW Cridge St. SW Garfield St. SW Phiibin Ave. SW Sierra Vista St. SW Total Riverside_ County Washington/Krameria SW 42nd St/Tilton Ave SW Opal St. Walkway Sun City Access Ramps McCall Blvd. Walkway Total San Jacinto Young St/Ramona Blvd. SW Temecula Nicholas Road SW Rancho Vista Road SW Total GRAND TOTAL 19 Agencies and 34 Projects Total COSt $38,856 $ 60, 000 S83,270 $134,750 S64,300 $65,370 $30,310 $_7.4, 420 $369,150 $48,000 $130,000 $40,000 $42,000 $40,00_0 $300,000 $80,000 $30,000 $49, 500 $79, 500 $2,342,836 SB 821 Funds Local Requested Fund S27,199 $11,657 $40,000 $20,000 $41,635 $41,635 $67,375 $67,375 S32,150 $32,150 $32,685 $32,685 $15,155 $15,155 $37,210 $37,210 $184,575 $184,575 $40,000 $8,000 $96,000 $34,000 $30,000 $10,000 S37,000 $5,000 $35,000 $5,000 $238,000 $62,000 $48,000 $32,000 $21,000 $9,000 $24,750 $24,750 $45,750 $33,750 $1,516,101 $827,295 TOTAL SB 821 FUNDS AVAILABLE $771,995 SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA Attachment II MAXIMUM FACTOR POINTS 1. USE 25 The extent of potential use of a bicycle or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. 2. SAFETY 20 Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. 3. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE 20 Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. 4. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY 15 Points are awarded to projects that link existing facilities or are extensions of or potentially connect to existing facilities. 5. MATCHING FUNDS 10 This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project - not just a application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5 % of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. 6. POPULATION EQUITY 10 The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". (Calculated by ROTC) 7. PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT 10 BONUS The purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical accessibility of existing pedestrain projects. Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for their project proposals which improve the physical access to existing facilities. RCTC: 4/ 12/95 Rank Agency 1 Corona 2 Riverside County 3 Hemet 4 Palm Desert 5 Murrieta 5 Palm Springs 7 Cathedral City 8 Riverside 9 San Jacinto 10 Blythe 11 Corona 12 Temecula 13 Riverside County 14 Beaumont 15 Riverside 16 Riverside 16 Riverside 18 Banning 19 Hemet 20 Moreno Valley 21 Perris 22 Riverside County 23 Moreno Valley 23 Moreno Valley 25 Riverside County 26 Riverside County 27 Moreno Valley 28 Temecula 29 Moreno Valley 30 Indio 31 Canyon Lake 32 Riverside 33 Rancho Mirage 34 La Ouinta/Indio SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 1999-00 RANKING OF PROJECTS Attachment III Project Description Chase Dr./El Cerrito Bikeway 42nd St./Tilton Ave. Sidewalk Santa Fe Ave. Sidewalk & Ramps Magnesia Falls Sidewalk & Bike Pa Washington Ave. Sidewalk Vista Chino Sidewalk & Bike Way Downtown Pedestrian Bridge -Ph Garfield St. Sidewalk Young St./Ramona Blvd. Sidewalk Chanslorway Sidewalk Grand Blvd. Circle Sidewalk Impr Rancho Vista Road Sidewalk Washington/Krameria Sidewalk 8th St. & 4th St. Bike Lane Brockton Ave. Sidewalk Cridge St. Sidewalk Sierra Vista St. Sidewalk Ramsey St. Sidewalk & Ramps Devonshire Sidewalk & Ramps School Area Accessibility Indian Ave. & Orange Ave. Sidewa Sun City Access Ramps Brodiaea Ave. Sidewalk Bay Ave. Sidewalk Opal St. Walkway McCall Blvd. Walkway Indian St. Sidewalk Nicholas Road Sidewalk Accessibility Enhancements Lido Ave./Shadow Ave. Sidewalk I Goetz Road Sidewalk Philbin Ave. Sidewalk Country Club Drive Path Jefferson St. Bike Lane Total SB 821 Funds Recommended Cummulative Average Costs Requested Allocation Funds Allocated Score $242,000 $193,600 $193,600 $193,600 85.67 $130,000 $96,000 $96,000 $289,600 84.87 S75,000 $60,000 $60,000 $349,600 81.83 $94,050 $47,025 $47,025 $396,625 81.67 $176,000 $88,000 $88,000 $484,625 80.67 $38,856 $27,199 $27,199 $511,824 80.67 $135,000 $97,000 $97,000 $608,824 78.43 $65,370 $32,685 $32,685 $641,509 78.33 S80,000 $48,000 $48,000 S689,509 76.83 S20,125 $14,087 $14,087 S703,596 76.67 $114,440 $91,520 $68,399 $771,995 76.17 $49,500 $24,750 SO $771,995 75.83 $48,000 $40,000 $0 $771,995 75.47 $113,120 $72,944 $0 $771,995 75.27 $134,750 $67,375 $0 S771,995 74.17 $64,300 $32,150 $0 $771,995 73.67 $74,420 $37,210 $0 $771,995 73.67 S60,000 $30,000 $0 $771,995 73.58 $40,000 $30,000 $0 $771,995 73.33 $25,000 $12,500 $0 $771,995 73.00 $60,000 $40,000 $0 $771,995 72.70 $42,000 $37,000 $0 $771,995 72.57 $20,000 $10,000 $0 S771,995 72.17 $20,000 $10,000 $0 $771,995 72.17 $40,000 S30,000 SO $771,995 71.67 $40,000 $35,000 SO $771,995 70.00 $50,000 $25,000 SO $771,995 68.67 $30,000 S21,000 $0 S771,995 68.17 $25,000 $12,500 $0 S771,995 67.17 $54,791 $47,644 SO $771,995 65.18 $30,000 $15,000 $0 $771,995 62.00 $30,310 $15,155 SO $771,995 60.67 $83,270 $41,635 $0 $771,995 60.60 $37,534 $34,122 $0 $771,995 53.97 Totals CB:6/14/99 F:WseMbechtelC\10tus\821rank.wk4 $2,342,836 $1,516,101 $771,995 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Program Extension Requests from the County of Riverside Serfas Club Drive Sidewalk The County was allocated $43,000 in FY 1997-98 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program funds for the construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Serfas Club Drive, between Rancho Corona Drive and Monterey Peninsula Drive, to serve the Cesar Chavez Elementary School in the Coronita area of the County. During design of the project, the County determined there was a shortage in the right of way needed along one property in the project area. The owners of the property are not willing to dedicate, nor sell, the needed right of way. County staff has determined that the same usage as originally intended can be accomplished for the school's pedestrian traffic by constructing the sidewalk on the west side of Serfas Club Drive, directly opposite the approved SB821 project site. The new sidewalk would connect to an existing sidewalk and will not require any additional 821 funds. A time of extension to June 30, 2000 is required to complete design work and award construction for the project. Staff recommends approval of this request. Sun City Access Ramps The County was allocated $29,500 in FY 1998-99 SB 821 funds for the construction of 22 access ramps in the Sun City area. The project has been designed and was advertised to obtain a firm to complete construction of the project. Only one bid was received and found to be of an excessive cost. The County would like to advertise once again to obtain more favorable bids since they have constructed two similar ramp projects recently at a much lower cost. In order to accomplish the rebid, the County is requesting a time extension on the project until September 30, 1999. Staff recommends approval of this request. Financial Assessment Project Cost $72,500 Source of Funds TDA Article 3/Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities kk�::kkkkkkiYY��'kk>kkkkkkk kk:\vk>kkkkkk kkktk.:kk:k'::tkk�•kk};:::.tik.::ki:.:':2k vvx\v+.:•.i:iv}kkkk •:.:2::k„i,,:6.k::kx.-.:w : : kkkkkk�kkk`,•;:':kk•:.:,,•.,,.,,,,.;.,•}::;• yy 4 ,kk 3CkkCkkkk tik •``.` ;.kkk kk t;`.ytxt:•}} }•:,}}•.,•••v:.xxnkktikvv.4•.x} xvnv+. „ kx,•..kt•.ttt „ :�:...................tttt.tt..is..,,.tititi,•::::tt•.ttt•.: ,t ,:.,,,,•.:,•.:kt•. •v 4•v •:.v. +tkw xv '�iu .. ``t k o.. ti w :.:�.t : 2ct tkt,:,,:,,:,,:,•.,,•:.•.t•.ttw•:.tktikkkt`.kk::•ti�:tkii..w,x,:x::,•.„k.,k::k:•.:::k:•.••ttitik•:kk�}�k'tk::kkkkkkk::kk�: w .v v •�, , 2. k'S v'• 2k',ti"! ti}: kkkk}k>.ki�•kk�kkkkki;:kktk<Lry:k v vv: ri } 3� ,:,titi,.r:: :.,:i...2.:.�,.. k \:\t\t •.:.w .,. �#..}',�".•.tx ,} x x . } kk kt,.:k::k,:k:, , ,.. R i.!: i :k;•`.}::, : .;.v}}} k},,:,,.,;..}v.;vv}v}v.} } }.:k'�:kYkkkk}.kkkkk;kti.:...,.,,.,,,:•,:•w„�:.,:•.,Yt.,:..:k... t vw tiw..vxx: n4 v nivixvn{x{•},..•:.tvwv.4,vv: n•}:.x:,xv:: v:.v. �:, •.'k•'vwvy.• k`„ . .,•:.\:,;kkk •.t t•.:•. „ x,•,.::• ••. •• . n}•:•:t�ti• � k xo..:. ''•``:::E:}:tl'•;::'':: ,,:kxC:.•...,:..::>. •. ,: •w3;.: xvvxv • ; .• kkkkkkkkk:a}::kkk::kk::k'd:}.kk:;:::k::kk= Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed 1998&1999 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1998& 1999 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant the County's request to amend the site location for the Serfas Club Drive project and approve the time extensions as requested to complete the two SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities projects. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Steve DeBaun, RCTC Legal Counsel Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 1999 Revisions to Local Guidelines to Implementing the California Environmental Quality and Adoption of Resolution No. 99-007, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act " There were a number of substantial changes made to the California Environmental Quality Act. These changes were noted in the attached memorandum from Legal Counsel and were incorporated in the proposed amendment to the Commission's local guidelines for implementing CEQA. For the benefit of the Commissioners, the following is a brief summary as to what CEQA is, its goal and purpose, and the local agencies' responsibilities to comply with CEQA. The basic goal of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to develop and maintain a high quality environment now and in the future, while the specific goals of CEQA are for California's public agencies to: 1) Identify the significant environmental effects of their actions; and, either 2) Avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or 3) Mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible. CEQA applies to "projects" proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. " Projects" are defined as those activities which have the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps. Where a project requires approvals from more than one public agency, CEQA requires one of these public agencies to serve as the "lead agency." A lead agency must complete the environmental review process required by CEQA. The most basic steps of the environmental review process are: • Determine if the activity is a "project" subject to CEQA; • Determine if the "project" is exempt from CEQA; • Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the project and determine whether the identified impacts are"significant". Based on its findings of "significance", the lead agency prepares one of the following environmental review documents: Negative Declaration if it finds no "significant" impacts. — Mitigated Negative Declaration if it finds "significant" impacts but revises the project to avoid or mitigate those significant impacts; Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if it finds "significant" impacts. While there is no ironclad definition of "significance", the State CEQA guidelines provide criteria to lead agencies in determining whether a project may have significant effects in Article 5. The purpose of the EIR is to provide State and local agencies and the general public with detailed information on the potentially significant environmental effects which a proposed project is likely to have and to list ways which the significant environmental effects may be minimized and indicate alternates to the project. The Plans and Programs Committee has reviewed the guidelines and they recommend Commission approval. PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the amended guidelines and adopt Resolution No. 99- 007, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines For Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code § §2100 Et Seq.). " NK Attachments: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 99-007 Attachment 2 - Memorandum from Legal Counsel Attachment 3 - Amended 1999 Local Guidelines for Implementing the CEQA RESOLUTION NO. 99-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § §2100 ET SEQ.) WHEREAS, the California Legislature has amended the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code § §2100 et seq.) And the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 14, § § 15000 et seq.) And the California courts have interpreted specific provisions of CEQA. WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires all public agencies to adopt objectives, criteria and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects undertaken or approved by such public agencies, and the preparation, if required, of environmental impact reports in connection with that evaluation; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") must revise its local guidelines for implementing CEQA to make them consistent with the current provisions and interpretation of CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The Commission adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999 Revision)," a copy of which is on file at the offices of the Commission and is available for inspection by the public. SECTION 2. All prior actions of the Commission enacting earlier guidelines are hereby repealed. ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 1999. Jack van Haaster, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTACHMENT 2 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Attachment 2 June 2, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP RE: UPDATES TO LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") INTRODUCTION We have prepared your 1999 edition of the "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act" ("Local Guidelines"). The 1999 edition is enclosed and can also be made available on diskette for your convenience. As we mentioned in our previous memorandum, dated March 15, 1999, CEQA has undergone significant changes in the past year. Your Local Guidelines reflect these changes including the significant changes to the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Local Guidelines are tailored to your specific needs and contain important information you are not likely to find in the current or future edition of the State CEQA Guidelines. This memorandum discusses some, but not all, of the changes reflected in the 1999 edition of the Local Guidelines. We believe the changes discussed herein are necessary for proper CEQA compliance and would be of interest to you. We have omitted mentioning those which deal with technical legal points or procedures that are not likely to impact you. However, if you are interested in a particular case or statute we have not addressed, we would be happy to discuss it with you, or provide you with a short summary. RVPUBINGS\514540 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST 6. KRIEGER LLP Your Local Guidelines are intended to supply you with a road map for assessing and analyzing the environmental implications of a project prior to approval. We still recommend that you consult with legal counsel when you have specific questions on major, controversial, or unusual CEQA projects. REVISIONS TO STATE CEOA GUIDELINES The California Resources Agency adopted a substantial number of revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines which became effective October 26, 1998. These changes are reflected in a number of provisions in your Local Guidelines. The more significant changes are as follows: A. Public Participation Through the Internet The State CEQA Guidelines provide that the Commission should encourage wide public involvement, formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the Commission's activities. Such involvement should include, whenever possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the Internet on a web site maintained or utilized by the Commission. The posting of notices on the Internet is mentioned in a number of Sections of the Local Guidelines including Section 3.05 (Notice of Exemption), Section 6.13 (Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration), Section 7.17 (Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR), and Section 7.22 (notices of public hearings). B. Reducing Delay and Paperwork Section 1.04 of your Local Guidelines has been revised in accordance with changes to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(c). These changes reflect the goal that environmental RVPUMNGS1514540 —2— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP document preparation and review should be coordinated in a timely fashion with existing planning, review, and project approval processes. These procedures, to the maximum extent feasible, are to run concurrently, not consecutively. C. Activities Considered to be a `Project" Two provisions have been added to Section 3.01 of the Local Guidelines regarding what will be considered a "project" subject to CEQA. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), Section 3.01(e) of the Local Guidelines provides that a project will not include organizational or administrative activities which are political or which do not result in physical changes in the environment (such as the reorganization of a school district or detachment of park land). Section 3.01(f) reiterates the existing policy, as emphasized in the new State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), that an activity will not be considered a project where it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. D. Emergency Projects Exempt from CEQA Section 3.08 has been amended to include the substantial additions made to the definition of emergency projects exempt from CEQA compliance. These changes were made to Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Emergency projects will include projects for removal or alteration of an historical resource when that resource represents an imminent threat to the public. Emergency projects will also include activities to repair an existing highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake or landslide provided that the project is within the existing right of way of that highway and is initiated within one year of when the damage occurred. RVPUBWGS1514540 —3— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP E. Categorical Exemptions Among the changes made to Section 3.16 of your Local Guidelines is the addition of language to Class 25 of the Categorical Exemptions. These changes are the result of revisions to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15325. This additional language provides that Class 25 activities include transfers of land in order to preserve habitat and historical resources. Examples include the sale or transfer of land in order to preserve plant or animal habitats. Other new classes of Categorical Exemptions include a Class 30 for minor cleanup actions costing $1 million dollars or less to prevent or mitigate hazardous waste (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15330), a new Class 31 for maintenance and repair of historical resources (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331), and a new Class 32 for projects characterized as in -fill development (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332). F_ Time Limitations Section 4.03 of your Local Guidelines reflects a change to the time limitations for completion and adoption of a Negative Declaration. Section 15107 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that for private projects involving the issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement, the Negative Declaration must be completed, as well as approved; within 180 days from the date when the application is accepted as complete. G. Evaluating Significant Environmental Effects Substantial additions have been made to Section 5.07 of your Local Guidelines which deals with evaluation of the environmental significance of effects. These additions are the result of amendments to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(I) and are reflected in revisions to Section 5.07 subsections (0, (g), and (h). RvpuB\NGs1514540 —4— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP For example, the Commission may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not "cumulatively considerable," as defined in the Local Guidelines, if the project will comply with requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (eg., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan). Section 5.07(h) provides that a change in the environment is not a significant effect if the change complies with a "standard." A "standard" may be used if: (I) it is found in a statute, ordinance, or regulation, (ii) it was adopted for the purpose of environmental protection, (iii) it was adopted by a public agency through a public review process, (iv) it governs the same environmental effect which the change in the environment is impacting, and (v) it governs the jurisdiction where the project is located. The Commission is encouraged to develop its own "thresholds of significance" to be used in determining the significance of environmental effects. This authority was created by the new Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. H. Evaluating Impacts on Archeological and Historical Resources Another major change to the State CEQA Guidelines was the addition of a new Section 15064.5 which provides guidelines for evaluating archeological and historical resources. These additions are included in Sections 5.10 and 5.11 of your Local Guidelines. As explained in Section 5.10, resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. In addition, resources listed in a local register are presumed to be significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise. RVPUBINGS1514540 —5— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP The new provisions in the Local Guidelines provide that a Lead Agency is authorized to determine that a resource may be an historical resource even if it is not listed in the California Register or in a local register. As a result, any object, building or site the Commission determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, educational or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource. In regard to archeological sites, Section 5.11 explains that the Commission shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource and if not, then it must be determined whether the site meets the definition of an unique archeological resource as set forth in the Public Resources Code. I. Recirculation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 15073.5 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines to provide substantial detail to the procedures for recirculating Negative Declarations. These procedures are located in Section 6.12 of your Local Guidelines. Section 6.12 states that a Negative Declaration must be recirculated when the document must be substantially revised after the public review period but prior to its adoption. A "substantial revision" is defined as a new and avoidable significant effect for which mitigation measures or project revisions must be added. J. Consultation with Other Agencies in Preparation of EIR Section 7.07 of your Local Guidelines reflects additions to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15154 which deals with the use of an Airport Land Use Plan during EIR preparation. K. Form and Content of EIR State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 was revised to include further detail regarding what should be contained in an EIR. As a result, Section 7.12(d) of the Local RVPUB\NGS\514540 —6— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Guidelines provides that a description of a project's physical environmental conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of Preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis begins, will be considered the environmental setting which will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which the Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. L. Analysis of Cumulative Impacts Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines has been substantially revised in regard to the appropriate discussion of cumulative impacts in an EIR. As a result, substantial revisions have been made to Section 7.13 of the Local Guidelines. For example, Section 7.13(a) explains that a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.. An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact is de minimis and thus is not significant. A de minimis contribution means that the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. M. Analysis of Mitigation Measures A new Section 15126.4 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines in regard to consideration of mitigation measures. These new provisions are reflected in Section 7.14 of your Local Guidelines. RVPUBINGS1514540 —7— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP N. Analysis of Alternatives in an EIR A new Section 15126.6 was added to the State CEQA Guidelines in regard to the consideration and discussion of project alternatives. As a result, Section 7.15 of the Local Guidelines was revised. For example, Section 7.15 now explains that an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. The Commission is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Substantial revisions have also been made to the discussion of the "No Project" alternative in the Local Guidelines. O. Recirculation When New Information is Added to an EIR Changes have been made to Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines in regard to the particular set of comments the Commission must respond to when the EIR is substantially revised and then recirculated. When the EIR is substantially revised and the entire EIR is recirculated, the Commission may require that reviewers submit new comments and the Commission need not respond to comments received during the earlier circulation period. When the EIR is revised only in part and the Commission is recirculating only the revised portions, the Commission may require that reviewers limit their comments to the revised portions. P. Findings Required for Facilities Which May Emit Hazardous Air Emissions Near Schools The new Section 15186 in the State CEQA Guidelines provides special requirements for certain school projects, as well as certain projects near schools, in order to ensure that potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials will be RVPUBINGS1514540 —8— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP carefully examined and disclosed. These requirements are addressed by Section 7.29 of your Local Guidelines. Q. Tiered EIR Section 8.05 of the Local Guidelines, dealing with use of a Tiered EIR, has been revised along the lines of the revisions made to Section 15152 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1997-1998 CEQA LEGISLATION During the 1997-1998 Regular Session - Statutes of 1998, the Legislature enacted certain bills involving the Public Resources Code and other statutes that have an impact on CEQA compliance. However the following bill is the only legislation which warranted an amendment to the Local Guidelines. SB 2005 Kopp Relating to the Permit Streamlining Act This legislation makes certain revisions to the Permit Streamlining Act. For instance, Section 65950 of the Government Code is amended to provide that any agency that is the Lead Agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove the project within whichever of the following periods is applicable: (1) 180 days from the date of certification of an EIR, (2) 60 days from the date of adoption of a Negative Declaration, or (3) 60 days from the determination that a project is exempt from CEQA. This legislation also amends Government Code Section 65951 to provide that in the event a combined EIR-EIS is being prepared on a development project, a Lead Agency shall approve or disapprove the project within 90 days after the combined EIR-EIS has been completed and adopted. RVPUB\NGS\514540 —9— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP SB 2005 also amended Government Code Section 65957 to provide that the time limits established by Government Code Sections 65950, 65950.1, 65951, and 65952 may be extended once upon mutual written agreement of the project applicant and the Lead Agency for a period not to exceed 90 days. No other extension of these time limits, either by the project applicant or the Lead Agency, shall be permitted. As a result of these changes to the Permit Streamlining Act, Section 4.05 of the Local Guidelines has been amended to include a reference to the requirements of Government Code Section 65957 in regard to waivers of time periods. During the 1997-1998 Regular Session - Statutes of 1997, the State Legislature enacted the following legislation which made certain changes to the authority of Lead and Responsible Agencies to request a meeting with each other during preparation of an EIR. AB 175 Torlakson Relating to Consultation with Other Agencies This legislation amended Public Resources Code section 21153(b) to provide that in the case of a project undertaken by a public agency, that agency may provide for early consultation to identify the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the E1R. At the request of said agency, the State Office of Planning and Research shall ensure that each Responsible Agency, and any agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, is notified regarding early consultation. This responsibility of the Office of Planning and Research is reflected in Section 5.02 of the Local Guidelines. RVPUBWGS1514540 —10— LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST 6. KRIEGER LLP CASE LAW REFLECTED IN 1999 EDITION OF THE LOCAL GUIDELINES Provisions were added to the State CEQA Guidelines to reflect requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Taken together, these cases provide the standard by which a public agency may impose conditions on new development. This standard requires a "nexus" between the legitimate governmental interest of the agency and the condition being imposed by the agency on a development or an applicant. It must then be determined whether there is a "rough proportionality" between the condition being imposed by the agency and the burden resulting from the development. Although no mathematical calculation is required, the agency must make some sort of individualized determination that the condition being imposed is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. This standard has been incorporated into provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines which authorize an agency to impose conditions on applicants. The typical condition involves imposition of mitigation measures. Consequently, certain provisions of the Local Guidelines have been revised to include a reference to this standard. For example, Section 6.08(e) provides that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall contain feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid potentially significant effects, which must be fully enforceable through permit conditions or other measures. Such conditions and measures must be consistent with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards. Sections 7.14 and 7.31 provide that mitigation measures in an EIR must be consistent with the standards set forth in Nollan and Dolan. RVPUB\NGS1514540 —11- LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP CONCLUSION Please let us know if you have any questions about the changes in CEQA law and the incorporation of such changes in your Local Guidelines. We recommend that you keep this memorandum filed with your 1999 Local Guidelines for future reference. RVPUB\NGS\514540 -12- ATTACHMENT 3 Attachment 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (1999) ©1999 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STAFF SUMMARY OF THE CEQA EVALUATION PROCESS vi 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS, PURPOSE AND POLICY 1 1.01 General Provisions 1 1.02 Purpose. 1 1.03 Applicability 2 1.04 Reducing Delay and Paperwork 3 1.05 Compliance With State Law 4 1.06 Terminology 4 1.07 Partial Invalidity 4 2. LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES 5 2.01 Lead Agency Principle 5 2.02 Selection of Lead Agency 5 2.03 Duties of a Lead Agency 5 2.04 Consultation Requirements for Development Projects 7 2.05 Responsible Agency Principle 8 2.06 Duties of a Responsible Agency 8 2.07 Response to Notice of Preparation by Responsible Agencies 8 2.08 Use of Final EIR or Negative Declaration by Responsible Agencies 9 2.09 Shift in Lead Agency Responsibilities 9 3. ACTIVITIES EXEMPT FROM CEQA 11 3.01 Actions Subject to CEQA 11 3.02 Ministerial Projects 11 3.03 Exemptions in General 12 3.04 Preliminary Exemption Assessment 12 3.05 Notice of Exemption 12 3.06 Disapproved Projects 13 3.07 No Possibility of Significant Effect 13 3.08 Emergency Projects 13 3.09 Feasibility and Planning Studies 14 3.10 Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges 14 3.11 Subsurface Pipelines Within a Public Right -of -Way 15 3.12 Affordable Housing Projects Up to 45 Units 15 3.13 Minor Alterations to Fluoridate Water Utilities 15 3.14 Ballot Measures 15 3.15 Transit Agency Responses to Revenue Shortfalls. 15 3.16 Other Specific Exemptions 16 3.17 Categorical Exemptions 17 RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _i_ 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP TO: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Project Title Project Location - Specific Project Location - City Project Location - County Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: The Significant Effects on the Environment, if any, Anticipated as a Result of the Project: Lead Agency Division Date when project noticed to public: Address where copy of the EIR and all documents referenced in the EIR are available: Review Period Date, Time and Location of Public Hearing, if any: Contact Person Area Code - Telephone - Extension [To be published, posted or mailed to contiguous owners/occupants, and sent to the last known name and address of organizations and individuals who have previously requested it.] RCTC/19V XLVPUttailA39 FORM "K" Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Table of Contents 6.13 Notice of Determination on a Project for which a Proposed Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been Approved 46 6.14 Addendum to Negative Declaration 47 6.15 Subsequent Negative Declaration 48 6.16 Private Project Costs 49 6.17 Filing Fees for Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources 49 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 52 7.01 Decision to Prepare an EIR 52 7.02 Contracting for Preparation of EIRs 52 7.03 Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR 52 7.04 Preparation of Draft EIR 53 7.05 Consultation with Other Agencies and Persons 53 7.06 Early Consultation on Projects Involving Permit Issuance 55 7.07 Airport Land Use Plan 55 7.08 General Aspects of an EIR 55 7.09 Use of Registered Consultants in Preparing EIRs 56 7.10 Incorporation by Reference 56 7.11 Standards for Adequacy of an EIR 57 7.12 Form and Content of EIR 57 7.13 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts. 59 7.14 Analysis of Mitigation Measures. 61 7.15 Analysis of Alternatives in an EIR. 63 7.16 Analysis of Future Expansion 66 7.17 Notice. of Completion of Draft OR 66 7.18 Submission of Draft EIR to State Clearinghouse 68 7.19 Special Notice Requirements for Waste and Fuel Burning Projects 68 7.20 -Review of Draft EIR by Other Agencies and Persons 68 7.21 Time for Review of Draft EIR; Failure to Comment 69 7.22 Public Hearing on Draft EIR 70 7.23 Response to Comments on Draft EIR 70 7.24 Preparation and Contents of Final EIR 71 7.25 Recirculation When New Information is Added to EIR 71 7.26 Certification of Final EIR 73 7.27 Consideration of EIR Before Approval or Disapproval of Project 73 7.28 Findings 74 7.29 Special Findings Required for Facilities Which May Emit Hazardous Air Emissions Near Schools 75 7.30 Statement of Overriding Considerations 76 7.31 Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Program for EIR 77 7.32 Notice of Determination 79 7.33 Disposition of a Final EIR 80 7.34 Private Project Costs 80 7.35 Filing Fees for Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources 81 RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _vi_ .1999 Best Best Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Table of Contents 8. TYPES OF EIRS 83 8.01 Project EIR 83 8.02 Subsequent EIR 83 8.03 Supplement to an EIR 84 8.04 Addendum to an EIR 85 8.05 Tiered EIR. 85 8.06 Staged EIR 87 8.07 Program EIR 87 8.08 Use of a Program EIR With Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations 88 8.09 Use of an EIR from an Earlier Project 88 8.10 Master EIR 88 8.11 Focused EIR 89 9. DEFINITIONS 92 9.01 "Applicant" 92 9.02 "Approval" 92 9.03 "CEQA" 92 9.04 "Categorical Exemption" 92 9.05 "Clerk" 92 9.06 "Commission" 92 9.07 "Cumulative Impacts" 93 9.08 "Cumulatively Considerable" 93 9.09 "Decision Making Body" 93 9.10 "Development Project" 93 9.11 "Discretionary Project" 93 9.12 "Draft EIR" 93 9.13 "Emergency" 93 9.14 "Environment" 94 9.15 "EIR" 94 9.16 "Feasible" 94 9.17 "Final EIR" 94 9.18 "Historical Resources" 94 9.19 "Initial Study" 95 9.20 "Jurisdiction by Law" 95 9.21 "Land Disposal Facility" 95 9.22 "Large Treatment Facility" 95 9.23 "Lead Agency" 95 9.24 "Mitigated Negative Declaration" 96 9.25 "Mitigation" 96 9.26 "Negative Declaration" 96 9.27 "Notice of Completion" 96 9.28 "Notice of Determination" 96 RCTURVPUB/313897 _iV_ °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (1999) Table of Contents 9.29 "Notice of Exemption" 96 9.30 "Notice of Preparation" 97 9.31 "Offsite Facility" 97 9.32 "Person" 97 9.33 "Private Project" 97 9.34 "Probable Future Projects" 97 9.35 "Project" 97 9.36 "Responsible Agency" 98 9.37 "Significant Effect" 98 9.38 "Staff' 98 9.39 "Standard" 98 9.40 "State Guidelines" 99 9.41 "Substantial Evidence" 99 9.42 "Tiering" 99 9.43 "Transportation Facilities" 99 9.44 "Trustee Agency" 100 9.45 "Zoning Approval" 100 10. FORMS 101 Preliminary Exemption Assessment Form A Notice of Exemption Form B Environmental Impact Assessment Form C Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Form D Negative Declaration Form E Notice of Determination Form F Notice of Preparation Form G Notice of Completion Form H Environmental Information Form Form I Environmental Checklist Form Form J Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report Form K Certificate of Fee Exemption Form L RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -V- •1999 Best Best dt Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process STAFF SUMMARY OF THE CEQA EVALUATION PROCESS Excerpted from these Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act GUIDELINES ACTION SECTION REFERENCE (A) Staff determines whether the Commission is Lead or 2.01, 2.02, 2.05, 2.09 Responsible Agency for the proposed activity. (1) As a Lead Agency, the Commission shall 2.03, 2.04 decide whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR will be required and shall prepare and consider the document before making its decision on whether and how to approve the proposed activity. (2) As a Responsible Agency, the Commission 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08 shall provide data as requested by the Lead Agency, consider the documents prepared by the Lead Agency and reach its own conclu- sion on whether and how to approve the proposed activity. (B) Staff examines proposed activity ("project") to 3.03 determine whether it is exempt. (1) The project can be exempt for anyof the following reasons: (a) ' The activity does not come within 3.01 the legal definition of "project." (b) It is a disapproved project. 3.06 (c) It can be seen with certainty that 3.07 there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. (d) It is a ministerial, not discretionary, 3.02 action taken by the Commission. RCTC/RVPUB/312884 -Vi- '11999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the Staff Summary of the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (e) It is covered by one of the 3.08, 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, exemptions in the CEQA statute. 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15 (f) It is covered by one of the 3.16 exemptions in the State Guidelines. (2) If the activity is determined to be exempt, 3.04, 3.05 Staff completes and files internally a Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A"). A Notice of Exemption (Form "B") should be filed with the Clerk following Cotmission approval of a project. (Attach Form "A", too.) The Clerk must post the Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of its receipt, and the Notice must remain posted for thirty (30) days. A thirty-five (35) day statute of limitations for legal challenges begins to run only if and when the Notice of Exemption is filed with the Clerk. If no Notice is filed, the statute of limitations for legal challenges is one hundred eighty (180) days. (3) If the activity is not exempt, Staff proceeds with its own environmental evaluation, beginning with the preparation of an Initial Study. (See Section (C) below.) (4) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of 3.05 Exemption prior to the date on which the Commission determines the activity is exempt, the copy must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the Commission's determination. If such a request is made following the Commission's determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. (C) Staff Preparation of an Initial Study. 5.01 (1) All Responsible and any Trustee Agencies 5.02 must be consulted in the preparation of the Initial Study. RCTC/RVPUB/312884 -Vii- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LL.P Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the' California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (2) Staff prepares an Initial Study, including the 5.01, 5.03, 5.05, 5.06 Environmental Checklist Form (Form "J") and all explanations as necessary. Based on the results of the Initial Study, 5.12 Staff prepares an Environmental Impact (See also 5.03,5.07, 5.08, Assessment (Form "C") for internal use 5.09, 5.10, 5.11) only. (3) (a) If Staff concludes that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, then it must recommend that a Negative Declaration be prepared. (b) If Staff concludes that the project could result in significant environmental effects but that the significant effects identified in the Initial Study have been avoided or mitigated to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur by revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant, then it must recom- mend that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be prepared. (c) If Staff concludes that the project could or may have a significant effect on the environment, it must recommend that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. (D) Staff Preparation of a Negative Declaration or 6.01, 6.02 Mitigated Negative Declaration. RCTC/RVPUB/312884 -Vlli- .1999 Beat Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Sumtnary of the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (1) If Staff recommends preparation of a Nega- 6.01, 6.02, 6.04, 6.08 tive Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, Staff must prepare a Draft Negative Declaration (Form "E") (unsigned but otherwise fully completed including a statement of supporting reasons) and fill out a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "D"). For a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Staff must also attach to Form "E" a description of mitigation measures for each significant impact. (2) Staff must then post a copy of the Notice of Intent, the Draft Negative Declaration/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study at the Commission office. The Notice must also be posted in the office of the Clerk of each County in which the project is located within twenty-four hours (24) hours of receipt by the Clerk, and must remain posted for a minimum of twenty (20) days, unless otherwise required by law to be posted for thirty (30) days. 6.05, 6.07 (3) At least twenty (20) days before the Board 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.07 of Directors' meeting, Staff must give Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "D ") by mail to the last known natives and addresses of all individuals and organi- zations who have previously requested such notice and by at least one of the following: (a) publishing once in a newspaper of general circulation, or, if more than one area will be affected, in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas; (b) posting on and off site where the project is to be located; (c) mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous property. RCTC/RVPUB/312884 -ix- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Qualm Act (1999) Staff Summary of the CEQA Evaluation Process A public review period at least as long as the period of review by the State Clearinghouse is required for Negative Declarations sent to the State Clearinghouse. (4) At the time noticed for the meeting, the 6.09, 6.10, 7.01 Board of Directors considers the matter. Comments, , if any, from the public and Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies which pertain to resources under their authority and are received during the public comment period, must be considered. If the Board of Directors determines in light of the whole record that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it adopts the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. For a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Commission must also adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program. In either case, the Commission must specify the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings. (If the decision making body finds, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a signifi- cant effect on the environment, it must order the preparation of an EIR. ) MOTION: Move that this Board of Directors finds in light of the whole record that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, the Negative Declara- tion/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Board of Directors, and that the Negative Declaration/ Mitigated Negative Declara- tion as proposed by Staff be adopted. RCTC/RVPUB/312884 -X- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the California Environmental Qualm Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (5) The Board of Directors can act upon the pro- ject after reviewing, considering, and adopting the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. MOTION: Move approval of the project, and direct Staff to file and post a Notice of Determina- tion in accordance with the Commission's Guidelines. 6.11 (6) Staff must file a .Notice of Determination 6.13, 6.17 (Form "F") with the Clerk and also with the Office of Planning and Research if the project requires state agency approval within five working days of approval. A fee of $1,250 shall be paid at this time to the Clerk for projects which will adversely affect wildlife resources. (Refer to the Index at the end of. this Staff Summary to determine whether a handling or administrative fee is also due.) The Notice must be posted in the Clerk's office within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt by the Clerk, and must remain posted for a minimum of thirty (30) days. (7) Staff simultaneously and conspicuously posts 6.13 Notice of Determination at the Commission office. (8) A thirty (30) day statute of limitations for 6.13 legal challenges usually begins to run only after the Notice of Determination has been filed with and posted by the Clerk (and with the Office of Planning and Research if approval by any State agency is involved). RCTC/RVPUB/312884 -Xi- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (9) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of Determination prior to the date on which the Commission adopts the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the copy must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the Commission's determination. If such a request is made following the Commission's determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. 6.13 RCTC/RVPUB/312884 -7ui- c1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the' California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (E) Staff Preparation of an EIR. 7.01 (1) If an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") 7.03 is required, the Commission as Lead Agency shall send a Notice of Preparation (Form "G") to all Responsible .and any Trustee Agencies. Responsible and Trustee Agencies must respond within thirty (30) days. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for each county in which the project is located, within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt by the Clerk, and must remain posted for thirty (30) days. (2) Staff shall commence preparation of a Draft 7.02, 7.04, 7.05, 7.06 EIR (staff may begin work on it immediately without awaiting responses to the Notice of Preparation). If a Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR is prepared under a contract to the Commission, the contract must be executed within forty-five (45) days from the date the Commission sends the Notice of Preparation, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon by the Commission and project applicant Early consultation ("scoping") is advisable during the drafting of the EIR with all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies and interested individuals and organizations of which staff is reasonably aware. (3) Upon completion of the Draft EIR, Staff 7.17, 7.18 shall file . a Notice of Completion (Form "H") with the Office of Planning and Research and give the required public Notice inviting comment upon the Draft EIR (Form "K") by mail to the last known names and addresses of all individuals and organizations who have previously requested such notice and by at least one of the following: (a) publishing once in a newspaper of 7.17 general circulation, or, if more than one area will be affected, in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas; RCTC/RVPUB/3121184 -Xlii- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (b) posting on and off site where the 7.17 project is to be located; (c) mailing to owners and occupants of 7.17 contiguous property. The Notice shall be posted in the Clerk's 7.17 office of each county in which the project is located within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt by the Clerk, and must remain posted for a minimum of thirty (30) days. This begins the comment period, which will be at least thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days depending on the project. (4) The Board of Directors may at its discretion 7.22 conduct a public hearing on the Draft EIR no sooner than fourteen (14) days after filing of the Notice of Completion but before the expiration of the comment period. (5) Comments on the Draft EIR are evaluated 7.23, 7.24 by Staff, responses are compiled and a Final EIR is prepared. At least ten (10)•days prior to certifying a Final EIR, the Commission must provide a written response to any agency which has made comments on the Draft EIR. (6) If "significant" new information is added to , 7.25 the EIR or if the Draft EIR is so inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment were precluded, notice and consultation must be repeated. RCTC/RVPUB/312884 • -Xlv- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LL.P Local Guidelines for implementing the Staff Summary of the California Environmental Qualm Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (7) Staff considers the Final EIR and makes a 7.26, 7.27, 7.28 recommendation to the Board of Directors regarding whether the Final EIR is in order and whether it has been completed in com- pliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines and the Commission's Guidelines. The Final EIR recommendations are presented to the Board of Directors which shall certify that the Final EIR is in order and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines, and the Commission's Guidelines, or refer it back to Staff for further work. A mitigation monitoring or reporting program must also be adopted. MOTION: Move that this *Board of Directors finds and certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guide- lines, and the Commission's local Guidelines, that it has reviewed and considered the information contained therein in making its decision on the project, and the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors must review and 7.27 consider the information in the EIR before considering and approving the project. Before the Board of Directors approves a 7.28, 7.29, 7.31 project, findings must be made as to whether each significant effect identified in the EIR will be mitigated and why alternatives which could reduce environmental impacts were rejected. RCTC/RVPUB/312884 _XV_ 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Summary of the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (10) Before the Board of Directors approves a 7.28, 7.30, 7.31 project which allows significant effects to occur without mitigating these effects to a level of insignificance, it must make written findings setting forth the overriding considerations which led the Board of Directors to forego full mitigation. The location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings shall be specified. MOTION: Move approval of the project for the following reasons: [State in writing reasons to support approval] and further find that: [Incorporate one or more findings of overriding considerations.] (11) If the project is approved, the Board of 7.32 Directors directs Staff to prepare a Notice of Determination (Form "F"). MOTION: Move approval and instruct Staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination thereon pursuant to the Commission's Guidelines. RCTC/RVPUB/312884 _XVi_ 41999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Staff Suary of the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) CEQA Evaluation Process (12) Staff must file a Notice of Determination 7.32, 7.33, 7.35 with the Clerk and also with the Office of Planning and Research if the project requires State approval within five (5) working days of approval. The Clerk must post the Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. A fee of $850 shall be paid at this time to the Clerk for projects which will adversely affect wildlife resources. (Refer to the Index at the end of this Staff Summary to determine whether a handling or administrative fee is also due.) The Notice shall be posted in the office of the Clerk for thirty (30) days. If a Statement of Overrid- ing Considerations is adopted, this must be noted in the Notice of Determination. (13) Staff simultaneously and conspicuously posts 7.32 Notice of Determination at the Commission office. (14) The thirty (30) day statute of limitations for 7.32 legal challenges usually begins to run only after the Notice of Determination has been filed with the Clerk (and with the Office of Planning and Research if approval by any State agency is involved). (15) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of 7.32 Determination prior to the date on which the Commission certifies the Final EIR, the copy must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the Commission's determination. If such a request is made following the Commission's determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. RCTC/RVPUB/312884 -xVii- a 1999 Best Best do Krieger I.LB d 11 Jalaux V Isag isa8 66610 -MAX- Sat 1 E/SlIdA11/313H £056 Va r14:423 - laai1S sa pod 4UoN SSZ 23y;0 sdpia Alunoa aI - TL£Z-£9Z/LOL 1ha13 Alunoa •aa; a slab oda uagm Apt° arm 331rI TO££6 VO 'P12Us-124g8 Ad g1S'unlwni S111 aaB;O sdpala 61uno3 waN s1Aga alsng 196Z-198/SO8 ;IND Alunoa •suolldwava 30; wadi 1ou 1nq'snuuTut—Iu ap ig svi3 'momentaau eAlleBaN io;�00•014 9ZS£6 Va 'amapuadapui sPlemP3 'N 891 [col d "Aiwa •0 •d =110 sdliala dlunoa odul 81Z0-8L8/619 4ha13 Ammo •suopengs lle 00'SZS ()JCR £17ZZ6 Va 'oiluaa la pang ule1N 6£6 ao8;0 sdpa10 Muno0 leuadwl LZW6££/619 *IND Alunoa •suojlenlls He 00'SZS 1eliadwl TOSS6 VD 'wing S£Z woos 'Pwis g1Ad SZS aogSO Sd11313 410003 1PlogwnH (Aaspun 30; ISV) EOSL-Sth/LOL 1.1313 Aunoa •suopengs Ile (10'SZS 1PIo9wnH 009Z-1ZL£6 Va'ousaid - =31 1 ZZZ uolslAM saolAin lepcIS a31.110 s,31121a Aunoa ousald (e1MN1 io; VV) - £00£18P/60Z vala Munoa - •aa; a alas Dm uagm dluo 00•S3 ous03d L99S6 Va `3111A-muld g $timing 'awl ilea 09£ 3311J0 3•4.1213 Alunoa ope.10Q 13 0-06K-1Z9/916 liala Xuinoa •uopdwaxa as;;o aleNluao a pm opelou lg smunquw ap a sl 2.13y1 ssalun'gym Zt9S6 Va 'uospej 133-11S 11wwnS St :leolskid laal1S Um° 80l lull!elN aolUO vi-lala kunoa iopeu tf 89179-£ZZ/60Z ipala Aiunoa •aa; a stag Jdri uagm /quo 00'SZS lopewV ssaappV aaqumu auogd laeluoa of luampedap aa3 uolPulsluluiPV ao aad Swum am i I u ma I AIN(103 AS 9I•II'II3 rivi awmoIIIAma O.L XaQM -- e..A V -a ,..n 00010 688Z I E/8f 1dAN/a1.31I 6S6S6 V3 `SII3 epenaN anuanV npie141056 [Jo] Z£Z9 Yob 'O'd aa1110 s,Japioaaa Aluno0 epenal l (egspi col lsV) 1ZZ1-S9Z/916 Japioaas Ammo •suopenus us 00'SZS oPeAaN 6506 VD `edeN Pails swoop am [Jo] 86Z Yob 'O'd aa111O sd1-1a13 dtuno� edeN (suoa NJ IsV) £69tr-£SZ/LOL • va10 Auno3 •suopenus Ile 00'SES edeN Z06£6 VO 'SeulleS 8i £ woos 'BuIM quoN asnoH uno0 Muno0 331110 s,lia10 Muno3 hialuoW 0S175-SSL/80tr limo Auno0 •aal a slat Oda uagm 4100 00•SZS dalamopi LIS£6 VO'u0dagP1J8 i pans um 'asnoH uno0 [Jo] L£S Y08 'O 'd 038.10 sdlialD AW000 oa011 IPZ5-Z£6-619 vaIJ kiuno0 . •suopenus He 00'SZS mow 10196 VD `se-1011V pans NnoD gtnos trot [Jo] 1£1 Y08 'O'd aa111O sdpa10 Aluno3 aopoyll (auncew us ley) 0019-££Z/916 t Bala Siuno0 aopoyq Z8tr56 VO 'ge1Xfl 1 woos yawls ams quoN 001 [Jo] 8tI Y08 'O'd aay10 sdila10 ,flunop ou►aopum (00iple-120.10l IsV) IL£tr-£9tr/LOL 11310 Muno0 •suopenus IF 00'5Z$ oupopuayg Z1006 V3 `salaBuV 901 £8£ Lull '13211S aldway • ,4 OOS salaBuV so-1 to Aluno0 mob aq1 }o x1213 Tap indwl lewawuonnu8 650Z-Z9tr/0I£ 'pap Siuno0 •suopenus se OO•SZS salaBuV sot ssaappV Jagwnu auogd l3et1100 of Iuatuundaa aa3 uonans1u1wPV Jo aa3 Bu!1Pum Oda iluno, d`1"I Jab! -IN lsag OM 66610 -XX- HISZ I E/BfldA11/31.111 8017£6 V0 `odsg10 MI ueS S8£ wool a2111301uawuaano0 Muno0 Auno0 ods!9O Hui ues aop3O exa10 kwno0 i 880E-18L/S08 vaTO dluno0 •suopenlls Ile 00'SZS «Is!g0 s!n'i UeS 100:E A p,aai aq onto uadsd Ip] 611Z6 VD'o8a!q un 09Z woos '.,null 313Pud 0091 a2)1100 u0peals!u!u1pV Aiuno0 (Jo] LH P-Z 11 Z6 V0 WWI un OSLI Yob '0 'd o8a!a ues 3o Aiono0 llaal0 Aunoppapaooaa (e111#4.103 IsV) I ZZ9-1 £S/619 3I.1310 A1uno0 •Aluo slim v suopeaeloaa aelle9aN ao3 00' SZS o8a!a ties 1 SIOZ6 V3'0u!paewag ues anuanV palimony 'N S8£ ou!paeung ties 3o A loop paeog a41)o lial0 £178£18£/606 paeog ayjo vaiO •suopenlis lie 00'0£S ou!paewag ues 6£80-Z18S6 VD'common 10111S 418 009 Doi 6£8 Ytig '0 'd aoilm sdlaa10 dluno0 oluaweloeS (Ina Qo3 IsV) 0-££ 1 L-£ 1 £/008 Jo 0-11£9-0141/916 val0 Aiono0 • Aluo qlld 7g suopeaeloao anpeBaN a03 00•SZS o)uaun:aoES I SLO-ZOSZ6 V0 'apisaanni SL Yob 'OA Alunop apisaanl)l 031130 s,311210 Muno3 LLOL-9817/606 lialO Aiuno3 •suopenl!s lie 00'83 ap!saan!3l IOLZ6 V0 'euV Min I IZ Lull 'nick' Qalua3 o!n!0 Zl aapao3auppo10 Aiunop am() 11ND 1113 900£1£8/OIL va10 Aluno0 •suopenl!s ilE 00'SZS amp ssaappV aagwnu auoyd )ae)uo, o) )uatupedaa aa3 uo!lealslulwpy ao aa3 8ullpum Oda 1 kjuno0 MC 10656 VO `alOnekeyg 13211S LIM S£6 33W0 8,41013 AulnoO egnA (slaueid .loj >IsV) 1b£9-117L/916 31.12D AunoO •ooj a slab Oda uaym Apio 00'SZS egnA 600£6 VO 'RAMA ioold yip 'anuaw epolo1A tOooS 008 einlumjo AumoO mos ay110 v213 1SZZ-Pg9/S08 wog ay110 vaIO •laa[oid .(aua8e allgnd a 1ou J1 Apio pus ',quo saki 1p suopenpoa anpeBaN JOJ 00'SZS mum 08096 VO Via Pall loans uoAulyseM £E9 [Jo] Oa xofl 'OA aawO sdpoiO AlunoO mein OS££-LZS/916 4h313 AwnoO •suopenlis He 00•SZS mum" 101 £6 VO 'eiegmfl e1ueS LOti Loll '•1S nuledeuV •fl S01 MunoO clew% e1ueS pieofl alp jo valO OVZZ-89S/S08 pima ayt to val0 . 'Oda 01 All3anp AVd •aaJ 1O1103 lou saop AunoO •auoN ei cm ewes ssaippV Jaqumu auoyd laeluoO of luatupedaa 333 uousimu{ulpd Jo aad &mug" 03Q kiunoO Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) General Provisions, Purpose and Policy LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (1999 REVISION) 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. PURPOSE AND POLICY 1.01 General Provisions. These Local Guidelines ("Guidelines") are to assist the Commission in implementing the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). These Guidelines are consistent with the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA ("State Guidelines") which must be followed by state and local agencies in California. These Guidelines have been adopted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21082. 1.02 Purpose. The purpose ofthese Local Guidelines is to help the Commission accomplish the following basic objectives of CEQA: (a) To enhance and provide long-term protection for the environment, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. (b) To provide information to governmental decision -makers and the public regarding the potential significant environmental effects of the proposed project. (c) To provide an analysis ofthe environmental effects of future actions associated with the project to adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project. (d) To identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 1 *1999 Bat Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental duality Act (1999) General Provisions, Purpose and Policy (e) To prevent significant avoidable environmental damage through utilization of feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures. (f) To disclose and demonstrate to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner chosen. Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Each public agency should encourage wide public involvement, formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to a public agency'sactivities. Such involvement should include, whenever possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the public agency. 1.03 Applicability. These Guidelines apply to any activity of the Commission which constitutes a "project" as defined in Guidelines Section 9.35. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is required for each such project which may have a significant effect on the environment. When the Commission finds that a project will have no significant environmental effect, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than an EIR shall be prepared. An EIR serves several functions for the benefit of the Commission and the public. An EIR (1) identifies and analyzes the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, (2) identifies alternatives to the project, and (3) discloses possible ways to reduce or avoid potential environmental damage. These matters are to be evaluated by the Commission before the project is approved or disapproved. The EIR is an informational document. It should not be used to rationalize approval of a project. CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social economic, or recreational development or advancement. Indications of adverse environmental impacts from the project which are identified in the EIR do not necessarily require disapproval of a project. Rather, when an EIR shows that a project would cause substantial adverse changes in the environment, the Commission must respond to the information by one or more of the following methods: (a) Changing the proposed project. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -2- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) General Provisions, Purpose and Policy (b) Imposing conditions on the approval of the project. (c) Adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of activities to avoid the problems. (d) Choosing an alternative way of meeting the same need. (e) Disapproving the project. (f) Finding that the unavoidable, significant environmental damage is acceptable pursuant to a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Although CEQA requires that major consideration be given to preventing environmental damage, the Commission also has an obligation to balance other public objectives for each project including economic and social factors. l .04 Reducing Delay and Paperwork. The State Guidelines encourage local governmental agencies to reduce delay and paperwork by, among other things: (a) Integrating the CEQA process into early planning review; to this end, the project approval process and these procedures, to the maximum extent feasible, are to run concurrently, not consecutively; (b) Identifying projects which fit within categorical or other exemptions and are therefore exempt from CEQA processing; (c) Using initial studies to identify significant environmental issues and to narrow the scope of EIRs; (d) Using a Negative Declaration when a project not otherwise exempt will not have a significant effect on the environmem; (e) Consulting with state and local responsible agencies before and during the preparation of an EIR so that the document will meet the needs of all the agencies which will use it; (f) Allowing applicants to revise projects to eliminate possible significant effects on the environment, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration rather than an EIR; (g) Integrating CEQA requirements with other environmental review and consultation requirements; RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -3- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) General Provisions. Purpose and Policy (h) Emphasizing consultation before an EIR is prepared, rather than submitting adverse comments on a completed document; (I) Combining environmental documents with other documents, such as general plans; (j) Eliminating repetitive discussions of the same issues by using EIRs on programs, policies or plans and tiering from statements of broad scope to those of narrower scope; (k) Reducing the length of EIRs by means such as setting appropriate page limits; (1) Preparing analytic, rather than encyclopedic EIRs; (m) Mentioning insignificant issues only briefly; (n) Writing ElRs in plain language; (o) Following a clear format for EIRs; (p) Emphasizing the portions of the EIR that are useful to decision -makers and the public and reducing emphasis on background material; (q) Incorporating information by reference; and (r) Making comments on EIRs as specific as possible. 1.05 Compliance With State Law. These Guidelines are intended to implement the provisions of CEQA and the State Guidelines, and the provisions of CEQA and the State Guidelines shall be fully complied with even though they may not be set forth or referred to herein. 1.06 Terminology. The terms "must" or "shall" identify mandatory requirements. The term "may" is permissive, with the particular decision being, left to the discretion of the Commission. The term "should" identifies the guidance of the Office of Planning and Research, which the Commission can follow in the absence of countervailing considerations. 1.07 Partial Invalidity. In the event any part or provision of these Guidelines shall be determined to be invalid, the remaining portions which can be separated from the invalid unenforceable provisions shall continue in full force and effect. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -4- .1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Lead and Responsible Agencies 2. LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES 2.01 Lead Agency Principle. The Commission will be the Lead Agency if it will have principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one public agency, only one agency shall be responsible for the preparation of environmental documents. This agency shall be called the Lead Agency. 2.02 Selection of Lead Agency. Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, the Lead Agency shall be designated according to the following criteria: (a) If the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the Lead Agency even if the project will be located within the jurisdiction of another public agency. (b) If the project will be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the Lead Agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising and approving the project as a whole. The Lead Agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose. (For example, a district which will provide a public service or utility to the project serves a limited purpose.) If two or more agencies meet this criteria equally, the agency which acts first on the project will be the Lead Agency. (c) If two or more public agencies have a substantial claim to be the Lead Agency under either (a) or (b), they may designate one agency as the Lead Agency by agreement. An agreement may also provide for cooperative efforts by contract, joint exercise of powers, or similar devices. If an agreement cannot be reached, the dispute may be submitted to the Office ofPlam ing and Research by any public agency, or the applicant if a private project is involved. 2.03 Duties of a Lead Agency. As a Lead Agency, the Commission shall decide whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR will be required for a project and shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and consider the document before making its decision on whether and how to approve the project. The documents may be prepared by RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -5- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) bead and Responsible Agencies Staff or by private consultants pursuant to a contract with the Commission. However, the Commission shall independently review and analyze all draft and final reports or declarations prepared for a project, and shall find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Commission prior to approval of the document. If a Draft EIR, Final EIR or Focused EIR is prepared under a contract to the Commission, the contract must be executed within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the Commission sends a Notice of Preparation. (See Guidelines Section 7.02.) During the process of preparing an EIR, the Commission shall have the following duties: (a) Immediately after deciding that an EIR is required for a project, the Commission shall send to each Responsible Agency a Notice of Preparation (Form "G") stating that an EIR will be prepared. (See Guidelines Section 7.03.) (b) The Commission shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Draft EIR for the project. (See Guidelines Section 7.04.) (c) Once the Draft EIR is completed, the Commission shall file a Notice of Completion (Form "H") with the Office of Planning and Research. (See Guidelines Section 7.17.) (d) The Commission shall consult with state, federal and local agencies which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project for their comments on the completed Draft EIR. (See Guidelines Section 7.20.) (e) The Commission shall provide public notice of the availability of a Draft EIR (Form "K") at the same time that it sends a Notice of Completion to the Office ofPlanning and Research. (See Guidelines Section 7.17.) (f) The Commission shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare or cause to be prepared a written response. A written response must be provided at least ten (10) days prior to certifying an EIR. (See Guidelines Section 7.23.) (g) The Commission shall prepare or cause to be prepared a Final EIR before approving the project. (See Guidelines Section 7.24.) RCTC/RVPUB/313897 .1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Lead and Responsible Agencies (h) The Commission shall certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and has been reviewed by the Board of Directors. (See Guidelines Section 7.26.) (i) The Commission shall include in the Final EIR, the reply of any Responsible Agency to the Notice of Preparation or Draft EIR. (See Guidelines Sections 2.07, 7.23 and 7.24.) 2.04 Consultation Requirements for Development Projects. An applicant for a development project must submit a signed statement to the Commission stating whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included in any list compiled by the Secretary for Environmental Protection of the California Environmental Protection Agency ("California EPA") listing hazardous waste sites and other specified sites located in the city or county. The applicant's statement must contain the following information: (a) The applicant's name, address, and phone number. (b) Address of site, and local agency (city/county). (c) Assessor's book, page, and parcel number. (d) The list which includes the site, identification number, and date of list. Before accepting as complete an application for any development project as defined in Guidelines Section 9.09, the Commission shall consult lists compiled by the Secretary for Environmental Protection of the California EPA pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 listing hazardous waste sites and other specified sites located in the city or county. The Commission shall notify an applicant for a development project if the project site is located on such a list and not already identified. In the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Guidelines Section 6.04) or the Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR (see Guidelines Section 7.03), the Commission shall specify the California EPA list, if any, which includes the project site, and shall provide the information contained in the applicant's statement. This provision applies only to projects for which applications have not been deemed complete on or before January 1, 1992. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -7- 01999 Beat Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Lead and Responsible Agencies 2.05 Responsible Agency Principle. Where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one public agency, all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project shall be called Responsible Agencies. 2.06 Duties of a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, the Commission shall consider the environmental documents prepared or caused to be prepared by the Lead Agency and reach its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved. The Commission shall also both respond to consultation by the Lead Agency and attend meetings as requested by the Lead Agency to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate environmental documents. The Commission should also review and comment on Draft EIRs and Negative Declarations. Comments shall be limited to those project activities which are within the Commission's area of expertise or are required to be carried out or approved by the Commission or are subject to the Commission's powers. As a Responsible Agency, the Conunission may identify significant environmental effects of a project for which mitigation is necessary. As a Responsible Agency, the Commission may submit to the Lead Agency proposed mitigation measures which would address those significant environmental effects. If mitigation measures are required, the Commission shall submit to the Lead Agency complete and detailed performance objectives for such mitigation measures which would address the significant environmental effects identified, or refer the Lead Agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to the Lead Agency by the Commission, shall be limited to measures which mitigate . impacts to resources which are within the Commission's authority. For private projects, the Commission, as a Responsible Agency, may require the project proponent to provide such information as may be required and to reimburse the Commission for all costs incurred by it in reporting to the Lead Agency. 2.07 Response to Notice of Preparation by Responsible Agencies. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Notice of Preparation of an EIR, the Commission, as a Responsible Agency, shall specify to the Lead Agency the scope and content of the environmental information related to the Commission's area of statutory responsibility in connection with the proposed project. At a minimum, the response shall identify the significant environmental issues and RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -8- 01999 Best Best k Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (1999) Lead and Responsible Agencies possible alternatives and mitigation which the Commission, as a Responsible Agency, will need to have explored in the Draft EIR. Such information shall be specified in writing, shall be as specific as possible, and shall be communicated to the Lead Agency, by certified mail or any other method of transmittal which provides it with a record that the notice was received, not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice of the Lead Agency's deter- mination. The Lead Agency shall incorporate this information into the EIR. 2.08 Use of Final EIR or Negative Declaratiori by Responsible Agencies. The Commission, as a Responsible Agency, shall consider the Lead Agency's Final EIR or Negative Declaration before acting upon or approving a proposed project. The Commission shall consider the adequacy of the prior environmental documents for its purposes and in certain instances may require that a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR be prepared. Mitigation measures and alternatives deemed feasible and relevant to the Commission's role in carrying out the project shall be adopted. Findings which are relevant to the Commission's responsibility shall be made. A Notice ofDetennination shall be filed by the Responsible Agency, but need not state that the Lead Agency's EIR or Negative Declaration complies with CEQA. 2.09 Shift in Lead Agency Responsibilities. The Commission, as aResponsible Agency, shall assume the role of the Lead Agency if: (a) The Lead Agency did not prepare any environmental documents for the project, and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency. (b) The Lead Agency prepared environmental documents for the project, and all of the following conditions occur: (1) A Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is required; (2) The Lead Agency has granted a final approval for the project; and (3) The statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency. (c) The Lead Agency prepared inadequate environmental documents without providing public notice of a Negative Declaration or sending Notice of Preparation of an EIR to RCTC/RVPUB/3I3897 -9- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Lead and Res_ponsible Agencies Responsible Agencies and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -10- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exeny from CEQA 3. ACTIVITIES EXEMPT FROM CEOA 3.01 Actions Subject to CEOA. CEQA applies to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. Ifthe proposed activity does not come within the definition of "project" contained in Guidelines Section 9.35, it is exempt from CEQA review. "Project" does not include: (a) Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature. (b) Continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies, personnel -related actions, general policy and procedure making (except as.provided in Guidelines Section 9.35), feasibility or planning studies. (c) The submittal of proposals to a vote of the people. (d) The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may have a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (e) Organizational or administrative activities of governments which are political or which do not result in physical changes in the environment (such as the reorganization of a school district or detachment of park land). (f) Where the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. 3.02. Ministerial Projects. A ministerial project is exempt from CEQA review. This is a project undertaken or approved by the Commission upon a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner, and in obedience to statute, ordinance, regulation or other legal mandate. A minis- terial project is one in which the Commission officer or employee has no discretionary power to exercise personal judgment or opinion as to the method in which the project will be carried out. CEQA review would be irrelevant for a ministerial project, because the Commission must act in a preordained way regardless of environmental impacts. The decision whether a proposed project is ministerial in nature may involve or require, to some extent, interpretation of the language of the legal mandate, and should be made on a case -by -case basis. Ministerial projects include, but are not limited to: RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -11— .1999 Best Best & ICrieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA (a) Issuance of business licenses; (b) Approval of final subdivision maps and final parcel maps; (c) Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections; (d) Issuance of licenses; (e) Issuance of a permit to do street work; (0 Issuance of building permits where the Commission does not retain significant discretionary power to modify or shape the project. Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial and discretionary nature, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and subject to the requirements of CEQA. 3.03 Exemptions in General. CEQA and the State Guidelines exempt certain activities and provide that local agencies shall further identify and describe certain exemptions. The requirements of CEQA and the obligation to prepare an EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration do not apply to the exempt activities which are set forth in CEQA, the State Guidelines and this Chapter. 3.04 Preliminary Exemption Assessment. If, in the judgment of Staff a proposed activity is exempt, Staff should so find on the form entitled "Preliminary Exemption Assessment" (Form "A"). The Preliminary Exemption Assessment shall be retained at the Commission's offices as a public record. 3.05 Notice of Exemption. After Commission approval of an exempt project, a "Notice of Exemption" (Form "B") may be filed by Staff with the Clerk. The Preliminary Exemption Assessment shall be attached to the Notice of Exemption for filing. If filed, the Clerk must post the Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt, and the Notice must remain posted for thirty (30) days. Although no California Department ofFish and Game ("DFG") filing fee is applicable to exempt projects, the Preliminary Exemption Assessment shall be attached to the Notice of Exemption for filing. The Clerk customarily charges a documentary handling fee to pay for record keeping on behalf of the DFG. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to determine if such a fee will be required for the project. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -12- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA The filing of a Notice of Exemption is recommended because it starts a thirty-five (35) day statute of limitations on legal challenges to the Commission's determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. The Commission is encouraged to make postings of all filed notices available in electronic format on the Internet. These electronic postings are in addition to the procedures required by the State Guidelines and the Public Resources Code. If a Notice of Exemption is not filed, a one hundred eighty (180) day statute of limitations will apply. When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the Commission determines the project is exempt, the Notice must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the Commission's determination. If such a request is made following the Commission's determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. 3.06 Disapproved Projects. Projects which the Commission rejects or disapproves are exempt. An applicant shall not be relieved of paying the costs for an EIR or Negative Declaration prepared for a project prior to the Conunission's disapproval of the project. 3.07 No Possibility of Significant Effect. Where it can be seen with absolute certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is exempt. 3.08 Emergency Projects. The following types of emergency projects are exempt: (The term "emergency" is defined in Guidelines Section 9.13.) (a) Work in a disaster -stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Section 8550 of the Government Code. This includes projects that will remove, destroy, or significantly alter an historical resource when that resource represents an imminent threat to the public of bodily harm or of damage to adjacent property or when the project has received a determination by the State Office of Historic Preservation pursuant to Section 5028(b) of the Public Resources Code. (b) Emergency repairs to publicly or privately owned service facilities necessary to maintain service essential to the public health, safety or welfare. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -13- °1999 Best Beat do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt front CEQA (c) Projects necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. This does not include long- term projects undertaken for the purpose of preventing or mitigating a situation that has a low probability of occurrence in the short-term. (d) Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, or restore an existing highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide, provided that the project is within the existing right of way of that highway and is initiated within one year of the damage occurring. This exemption does not apply to highways designated as official state scenic highways, nor any project undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to expand or widen a highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide. (e) Seismic work on highways and bridges pursuant to Section 180.2 of the Streets and Highways Code, Section 180 et. seq. 3.09 Feasibility and Planning Studies. A project which involves only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the Commission has not yet approved, adopted or funded is exempt. 3.10 Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges. The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring or approval of rates, tolls, fares or other charges by the Commission which the Commission finds are for one or more of the purposes listed below are exempt. (a) Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; (b) Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or materials; (c) Meeting financial reserve needs and requirements; (d) Obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. When the Commission determines that one of the aforementioned activities pertaining to rates, tolls, fares or charges is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, it shall incorporate written findings setting forth the specific basis for the claim of exemption in the record of any proceeding in which such an exemption is claimed. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -14- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Envirotttnental Qualtry Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA 3.11 Subsurface Pipelines Within a Public Right -of -Way. The installation of a new pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal or demolition of an existing subsurface pipeline is exempt where the project is less than one mile in length and located within a public street, highway or any other public right-of-way. 3.12 Affordable Housing Projects Un to 45 Units. A residential housing development project in an urbanized area with no more than forty-five (45) units affordable to lower income households (as defined by state law) is exempt ifthe developer: (a) provides adequate legal commitments that the project will continue to provide low and moderate income housing, and (b) meets all other requirements set forth in Section 21080.14 of the Public Resources Code. 3.13 Minor Alterations to Fluoridate Water Utilities. Minor alterations to water utilities made for the purpose of complying with the fluoridation requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 4026.7 and 4026.8 or regulations adopted thereunder are exempt. 3.14 Ballot Measures. The definition ofProject in the State Guidelines specifically excludes the submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community. Although there is no distinction between measures sponsored by the Commission or the voters, the Commission should be careful in using this exemption when it exercises discretion in approving a project which is later submitted to the voters for their approval, such as statutory development agreements or deannexation proposals. 3.15 . Transit Agency Responses to Revenue Shortfalls. CEQA does not apply to actions taken on or after July 1, 1995 to implement budget reductions made by a publicly owned transit agency as a result of a fiscal emergency caused by the failure of agency revenues to adequately fund agency programs and facilities. Actions shall be limited to those directly undertaken by or financially supported in whole or in part by the transit agency pursuant to the definition of a project as set forth in State Guidelines Section 15378(a)(1) or (2), including actions which reduce or eliminate the availability of an existing publicly owned transit service, facility, program, or activity. (a) When invoking this exemption, the transit agency shall make a specific finding that there is a fiscal emergency. Before taking its proposed budgetary actions and making RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -15_ 01999 Beat Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quali Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA the finding of fiscal emergency, the transit agency shall hold a public hearing. After this public hearing, the transit agency shall respond within thirty (30) days at a regular public meeting to suggestions made by the public at that initial hearing. The transit agency may make the finding of fiscal emergency only after it has responded to public suggestions. (b) "Fiscal emergency" means that the transit agency is projected to have negative working capital within 1 year from the date that the agency finds that a fiscal emergency exists. "Working capital" is defined as the sum of all unrestricted cash, unrestricted short-term investments and unrestricted short-term accounts receivable, minus unrestricted accounts payable. Employee retirement funds, including deferred compensation plans and Section 401(k) plans, health insurance reserves, bond payment reserves, workers' compensation reserves, and insurance reserves shall not be included as working capital. (c) This exemption does not apply to the action of any publicly owned transit agency to reduce or eliminate a transit service, facility, program, or activity that was approved or adopted as a mitigation measure in any environmental document certified or adopted by any public agency under either CEQA or NEPA. 3.16 Other Specific Exemptions. CEQA and the State Guidelines exempt many other specific activities, including early activities related to thermal power plants, ongoing projects, transportation improvement programs, family day care homes, congestion management programs, railroad grade separation projects, restriping of streets or highways to relieve traffic congestion, and hazardous or volatile liquid pipelines. Specific statutory exemptions are listed in the Public Resources Code, including Sections 21080 through 21080.33, and in State Guidelines, including Sections 15260 through 15285. 3.17 Categorical Exemptions. The State Guidelines establish certain classes of categorical exemptions. These apply to classes of projects which have been legislatively determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which, therefore, are exempt. Compliance with the requirements of CEQA or the preparation of environmental documents for any project which comes within one of these classes of categorical exemptions is not required. RCTC/RVPUB/3413$97, -16- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999/ Activities ExemTt from CEQA The classes of projects are briefly summarized below. (Reference to the State Guidelines for the full description of each exemption is recommended.) The exemptions of Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 below are qualified in that such projects must be considered in light of the location of the project. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may, in a particularly sensitive environment, be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern which is designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state or local agencies. It is important to note that all exemptions for all classes are qualified to the extent that they are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time is significant or when there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. With the foregoing limitations in mind, the following classes of activity are exempt: Class 1 Existing Facilities. The operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, equipment or other property of every kind, which activity involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the Commission's determination. The types of "existing facilities itemized in Class 1 are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. (State Guidelines Section 15301.) Class 2 Replacement or Reconstruction. Replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities, structures, or other property where the new facility or structure will be located on the same site as the replaced or reconstructed facility or structure and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the replaced or reconstructed facility or structure. (State Guidelines Section 15302.) RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -17- .1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Construction of limited numbers of small, new facilities or structures and installation of small, new equipment or facilities in small structures, and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. This exemption includes structures built for both residential and commercial uses. (The maximum number of structures allowable under this exemption is set forth in State Guidelines Section 15303.) Class 4 Minor Alterations to Land. Minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature or scenic trees. (State Guidelines Section 15304.) Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than twenty percent (20%) which do not result in any changes in land use or density. (State Guidelines Section 15305.) Class 6 Information Collection. Basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. (State Guidelines Section 15306.) Class 7 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources. Actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. (State Guidelines Section 15307.) Class 8 Actions By Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment. Actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. (State Guidelines Section 15308.) RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -18- •1999 Best Best do Krieger LL.P Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Qualny Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA Class 9 Inspection. Inspection activities, including, but not limited to, inquiries into the performance of an operation and examinations of the quality, health or safety of a project. (State Guidelines Section 15309.) Class 10 Loans. Loans made by the Department of Veteran Affairs under the Veterans Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1943, mortgages for the purchase of existing structures where the loan will not be used for new construction and the purchase of such mortgages by financial institutions. (State Guidelines Section 15310.) Class 11 Accessory Structures. Construction or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including, but not limited to, on -premise signs, small parking lots, and placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums or other facilities designed for public use. (State Guidelines Section 15311.) Class 12 Surplus Government Property Sales. Sales of surplus government property, except for certain parcels of land located in an area of statewide, regional or areawide concern. (State Guidelines Section 15312.) Class 13 Acquisition of Lands for Wildlife Conservation Purposes. Acquisition of .lands for fish and wildlife conservation purposes, including habitat preservation, and for preserving access to public lands and waters where the purpose of the acquisition is to preserve the land in its natural condition. (State Guidelines Section 15313.) Class 14 Minor Additions to Schools. Minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds where the addition does not increase original student capacity by more than twenty-five percent (25%) or ten (10) classrooms, whichever is less. The addition of portable classrooms is included in this exemption. (State Guidelines Section 15314.) RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -19- 619999 Best Best & Krieger L,P Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exemin from CEQA Class 15 Minor Land Divisions. Divisions of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two (2) years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than twenty percent (20%). (State Guidelines Section 15315.) Class 16 Transfer of Ownership of Land in Order to Create Parks. Acquisition, sale, or other transfer of land in order to establish a park where the land is in a natural condition or contains historical or archaeological resources. CEQA will apply when a management plan is proposed that will change the area from its natural condition or cause substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic or archaeological resource. (State Guidelines Section 15316.) Class 17 Open Space Contracts or Easements. Establishment of agricultural preserves, making and renewing of open space contracts under the Williamson Act or acceptance of easements or fee interests in order to maintain the open space character of the area. (The cancellation of such preserves, contracts, interests or easements is not included in this exemption.) (State Guidelines Section 15317.) Class 18 Designation of Wilderness Areas. Designation of wilderness areas under the California Wilderness System. (State Guidelines Section 15318.) Class 19 Annexations of Existing Facilities and Lots for Exempt Facilities. (a) Annexations to a city or special district of areas containing existing public or private structures developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or prezoning of either the gaining or losing governmental agency, whichever is more restrictive; provided, however, that the extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only the existing facilities. (b) Annexations of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities exempted by Class 3. (State Guidelines Section 15319.) RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -20- 01999 Best Best at Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA Class 20 Changes in Organization of Local Agencies. Changes in the organization of local governmental agencies where the changes do not change the geographical area in which previously existing powers are exercised. (State Guidelines Section 15320.) , , Class 21 Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies. Actions by the Commission to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use issued, adopted or prescribed by the Commission or a law, general rule, standard or objective, administered or adopted by the Commission. (Construction activities undertaken by the Commission taking the enforcement or revocation action are not included in this exemption.) (State Guidelines Section 15321.) Class 22 Educational or Training Programs Involving No Physical Changes. The adoption, alteration or termination of educational or training programs which involve no physical alteration in the area affected or which involve physical changes only in the interior of existing school or training structures. (State Guidelines Section 15322.) Class 23 Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings. Continued or repeated normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings for which the facilities were designed, where there is past history,. of at least three years, of the facility being used for the same or similar purposes. Facilities included within this exemption include, but are not limited to race tracks, stadiums, convention centers, auditoriums, amphitheaters, planetariums, swimming pools and amusement parks. (State Guidelines Section 15323.) Class 24 Regulation of Working Conditions. Actions taken by the Commission to regulate employee wages, hours of work or working conditions where there will be no demonstrable physical changes outside the place of work. (State Guidelines Section 15324.) Class 25 Transfers of Ownership of Interest in Land to Preserve Existing N_atural Conditions and Historical Resources. Transfers of ownership of interest in land in order to preserve open space, habitat, or historical resources. Examples include, but are not limited to, acquisition, sale, or other RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -21- .1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA transfer of areas to preserve existing natural conditions, including plant or animal habitats, to allow continued agricultural use of the areas, to allow restoration of natural conditions, or to prevent encroachment of development into floodplains. (State Guidelines Section 15325.) Class 26 Acouisition of Housing for Housing Assistance Programs. Actions by a redevelopment agency, housing authority or other public agency to implement an adopted Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring an interest in housing units. (State Guidelines Section 15326.) Class 27 Leasing New Facilities. Leasing of a newly constructed or previously unoccupied privately owned facility by a local or state agency where the Commission determines, based on specific criteria, that the building is exempt. (State Guidelines Section 15327.) Class 28 Small Hydroelectric Projects as Existing Facilities. Installation of certain small hydroelectric generating facilities in connection with existing dams, canals and pipelines. (State Guidelines Section 15328.) Class 29 Cogeneration Projects at Existing Facilities. Installation of cogeneration equipment with a capacity of 50 megawatts or less at existing facilities meeting certain conditions. (State Guidelines Section 15329.) Class 30 Minor Actions to Prevent. Minimize. Stabilize. Mitigate or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Waste.or Hazardous Substances Any minor cleanup actions costing $1 million or less to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of a hazardous waste or substance. (State Guidelines Section 15330.) Class 31 Historical Resource Restoration / Rehabilitation Maintenance, repairs, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer (State Guidelines Section 15331). Class 32 In -Fill Development Projects RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -22- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Activities Exempt from CEQA Projects characterized as in -fill development which meet the following conditions: (a) The project is consistent with applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. (State Guidelines Section 15332.) RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -23- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Qualit, Act (1999) Time Limitations 4. TIME LIMITATIONS 4.01 Review of Private Project Applications. Staff shall determine whether the application for a private project is complete within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application. No application may be deemed incomplete for lack of a waiver of the time limitations in Guidelines Sections 4.03 and 4.04. Accepting an application as complete does not limit the authority of the Commission, acting as the Lead Agency, to require the applicant to submit additional information needed for environmental evaluation of the project. Requiring such additional information after the application is complete does not change the status of the application. 4.02 Determination of Environmental Impact. Except as provided in Guidelines Sections 4.05 and 4.06, Staffs initial determination as to whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an MR should be prepared shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date on which an application for a project is accepted as complete by the Commission. This period may be extended fifteen (15) days with consent of the applicant and the Commission. 4.03 Completion and Adoption of Negative Declaration. For private projects involving the issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be completed and approved within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date when the Commission accepted the application as complete. Completion of a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration within the 180-day period shall include completion of the Initial Study, public review and the preparation of documents for approval by the decision making body (see definition Guidelines Section 9.08). In the event that compelling circumstances justify additional time and the project applicant consents thereto, Staffmay provide for a reasonable extension of the time limit for completing and adopting the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4.04 Completion and Certification of Final EIR. For private projects, the Final EIR shall be completed and certified by the Board of Directors within one year after the date when the RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -24- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Time Limitations Commission accepted the application as complete. In the event that compelling circumstances justify additional time, the Board ofDirectors may provide a one-time extension up to ninety (90) days for completing and adopting the EIR, upon consent of the Commission and the project applicant. 4.05 Projects Subject to the Permit Streamlining Act. The Permit Streamlining Act requires agencies to make decisions on development project approvals within specified time limits. If a project is subject to the Act, the Conunission cannot require the project applicant to submit the informational equivalent of an EIR or prove compliance with CEQA as a prerequisite to determining whether the project application is complete. In addition, if requested by the project applicant, the Commission must begin processing the project application prior to final CEQA action, provided the information necessary to begin the process is available. Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the Commission as Lead Agency must approve or disapprove the development project application within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date on which it certifies the EIR, or ninety (90) days if an extension for completing and certifying the EIR is granted (see Guidelines Section 4.04). If the Commission adopts a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or determines the development project is exempt from CEQA, it shall approve or disapprove the project application within sixty (60) days from the date on which it adopts the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration or determines that the project is exempt from CEQA. Except for waivers of the time periods for preparing a joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (as outlined in Government Code Sections 65951 and 65957), The Commission cannot require a waiver ofthe time limits specified in the Permit Streamlining Act as a condition of accepting or processing a development project application. In addition, the Commission cannot disapprove a development project application in order to comply with the time limits specified in the Permit Streamlining Act. 4.06 Projects, Other .Than Those Subject to the Permit Streamlining Act. With Short Time Periods for Approval. A few statutes require agencies to make decisions on project applications within time limits that are so short that review ofthe project under CEQA would RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -25- °1999 Best Best do Krieger L.L.P Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Time Limitations be difficult. To enable the Commission as Lead Agency to comply with both the enabling statute and CEQA, .the Commission shall deem a project application as not received for filing under the enabling statute until such time as the environmental documentation required by CEQA is complete. This section applies where all of the following conditions are met: (a) The enabling statute for a program, other than development projects under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, requires the Commission to take action on an application within a specified period of time of six (6) months or less; (b) The enabling statute provides that the project is approved by operation of law if the Commission fails to take any action within the specified time period; and (c) The project application involves the Commission's issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use. In any case, the environmental document shall be completed or certified . and the decision on the application shall be made within the period established by the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Sections 65920, et seq.). 4.07 Suspension of Time Periods. An unreasonable delay by an applicant in meeting Commission requests necessary for the preparation of a Negative Declaration or an EIR shall suspend the running of the time periods described in Guidelines Sections 4.03 and 4.04 for the period of the unreasonable delay. Alternately, the Commission may disapprove a project application where there is unreasonable delay in meeting requests. The Commission may also allow a renewed application to start at the same point in the process where the application was when it was disapproved RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -26- 61999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study 5. INITIAL STUDY 5.01 Preparation of Initial Study. If the Comnssion determines that it is the Lead Agency for a project which is not exempt, the Commission shall prepare an Initial Study to ascertain whether the project may have a substantial adverse effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial. All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. An Initial Study may rely on expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies or other substantial evidence. However, an Initial Study is neither intended nor required to include the level of detail included in an EIR. (a) For Commission projects, the Initial Study shall be prepared by Staff or by private experts pursuant to contract with the Commission. (b) For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall submit all data and information as may be required by the Commission to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. All costs incurred by the Commission in reviewing the data and information submitted, or in conducting its own investigation based upon such data and information, or in preparing an Initial Study for the project shall be borne by the person or entity proposing to carry out the project. 5.02 Informal Consultation With Other Agencies. When more than one public agency will be involved in undertaking or approving a project, the Commission as Lead Agency shall consult with all Responsible and any Trustee Agencies. Such consultation shall be undertaken as part of the Initial Study process prior to determining whether an EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration is required for the project. This early consultation, which may be done quickly and informally, is designed to insure that the EIR,, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will reflect the concerns of all Responsible Agencies that will issue approvals for the project and all Trustee Agencies responsible for natural resources affected by the project. It may include con- sultation with other individuals or organizations with an interest in the project. The Office RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _27_ °1999 Hest Hest & Krieger LL.P Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study of Planning and Research, upon request of the Commission or a private project applicant, shall assist in identifying the various Responsible Agencies for a proposed project and ensure that the Responsible Agencies are notified regarding any early consultation. In the case of a project undertaken by a public agency, the Office of Planning and Research, upon request of the Commission, shall ensure that any Responsible Agency or public agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project is notified regarding any early consultation. If, during the early consultation process it is determined that the project will clearly have a significant effect on the environment, the Commission may immediately dispense with the Initial Study and determine that an EIR is required. 5.03 Consultation With Private Project Applicant. During or immediately after preparation of an Initial Study for a private project, the Commission may consult with the applicant to determine if the applicant is willing to modify the project to reduce or avoid the significant effects identified in the Initial Study. If the project can be revised to avoid or mitigate effects to a level of insignificance and there is no substantial evidence before the Commission that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment, the Commission may prepare and adopt a Negative Declaration. If any significant effect may still occur despite alterations of the project, an OR must be prepared. 5.04 Purposes of Initial Study. The Initial Study shall be used to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR shall be prepared for a project. It provides written documentation of whether the Commission found evidence of significant adverse impacts which might occur. The purposes of an Initial Study are to: (a) Identify environmental impacts; (b) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is written; (c) Focus an EIR, if one is required, on potentially significant environmental effects; (d) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (e) Provide documentation ofthe factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (f) Eliminate unnecessary EIIts; and RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -28- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study (g) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project. 5.05 Contents of Initial Study. An Initial Study shall contain in brief form: (a) A description of the project, including the location of the project. The project description must be consistent throughout the environmental review process; (b) An identification of the environmental setting; (c) An identificatioh of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method provided that entries are briefly explained to show the evidence supporting the entries. The brief explanation may be through either a narrative or a reference to other information such as attached maps, photographs, or an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. A reference to another document should include, if possible, a citation to the page or pages where the information is found; (d) A discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified; (e) An examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning and local land use plans; (f) The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study; (g) A summary of any comments regarding the project received from Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies or other persons; and (h) Identification of prior EIRs or environmental documents which could be used with the project. 5.06 Use of a Checklist Initial Study. When properly completed, the Environmental Checklist (Form "J") will meet the requirements of Guidelines Section 5.05 for private pro- jects provided that the entries on the checklist are explained. For a Commission -initiated project, the requirements of Guidelines Section 5.05 will be met by use of the Environmental Checklist (Form "J") and a separate attachment containing a description of the project, including its location and an identification of the environmental setting and summaries of any comments received regarding the project. California courts have rejected the use of bare, unsupplemented Initial Study checklist. An Initial Study must contain more than mere conclusions. It must disclose supporting data or evidence upon which the Commission relied in conducting the Study. The Commission RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -29- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study shall augment checklists with supporting factual data and reference information sources when completing the forms. Explanation of all "potential impact" answers should be provided on attached sheets. For controversial projects, it is advisable to state briefly why "no" answers were checked. If practicable, attach an addendum listing commonly used reference material such as plans, traffic studies, air quality data and prior Erns. 5.07 Evaluating Significant Environmental Effects. In evaluating the environmental significance of effects disclosed by the Initial Study, the Commission shall consider: (a) Whether the Initial Study and/or any comments received informally during consultations indicate that a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Even if a fair argument can be made to the contrary, an EIR should be prepared. (b) Whether both primary (direct) and secondary (indirect) consequences of the project were evaluated. Primary consequences are immediately related to the project, while secondary consequences are related more to the primary consequences than to the project itself. For example, secondaryimpacts upon the resources base, including land, air, water and energy use of an area, may result from population growth, a primary impact. (c) Whether adverse social and economic changes will result from a physical change caused by the project. Adverse economic and social changes resulting from a project are not, in themselves, significant environmental effects. However, if such adverse changes cause physical changes in the environment, those consequences may be used as the basis for finding that the physical change is significant. (d) Whether there is serious public controversy or disagreement among experts over the environmental effects ofthe project. However, controversy or disagreement alone shall not require preparation of an EIR in the absence of substantial evidence of significant effects. (e) Whether the project meets existing standards for air emissions and water discharges of a particular pollutant. If so, it may be presumed that the discharge will not create a significant environmental effect, absent information to the contrary. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -30- °I999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Stud (f) Whether the cumulative impact of the project is significant and whether the effects of the project are "cumulatively considerable" (as defined in Guidelines Section 9.07) when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, and "probable future projects; (as defined in Guidelines Section 9.34). The Commission may determine that the incremental impacts of a project are not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which is specified in law or properly adopted by a public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources, and which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem. The Conunission may also determine that the incremental impacts of a project are not cumulatively considerable when they are so small that they make only a "de minimis" contribution to a significant cumulative impact caused by other projects that would exist in the absence of the proposed project. A de minimis contribution means that the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. (g) Whether the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. (h) Whether the effect complies with a "standard" (as defined in Guidelines Section 9.39). A change in the environment is not a significant effect if it complies with such a standard. 5.08 Mandatory Findings of Significant Effect. Whenever any of the conditions set forth below are found to exist, a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment shall be required: (a) The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range. of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _31_ °1999 Best Best & Krieger L,P Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) leroal Study (b) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. (c) The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects as defined in Guidelines Sections 9.07 and 9.34. That is, the Commission is required to determine whether the incremental impacts of a project are cumulatively considerable by evaluating them against the back -drop of the environmental effects of the other projects. (d) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on humans either directly or indirectly. 5.09 Mandatory Preparation of an E1R for Waste Burning Projects. The Commission, as Lead Agency, shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an EIR or, if appropriate, a modification, addendum, or supplement to an existing EIR for any project involving the burning of municipal wastes, hazardous waste or refuse -derived fuel, including, but not limited to, tires, if the project consists of any of the following: (a) The construction of a new facility. (b) The expansion of an existing hazardous waste burning facility which would increase its permitted capacity by more than ten percent (10%). (c) The issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit to a land disposal facility, as defined in Guidelines Section 9.21. (d) The issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit to an offsite large treatment facility, as defined in Guidelines Sections 9.22 and 9.31. The Commission shall calculate the percentage of expansion for an existing facility by comparing the proposed facility capacity with either of the following which would be applicable: (a) The facility capacity authorized in the facility's hazardous waste facilities permit pursuant to Section 25200 of the Health and Safety Code, or its grant of interim status pursuant to Section 25200.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or the facility capacity RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -32- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study authorized in any state or local agency permit allowing the construction or operation of the facility for the burning of hazardous waste granted before January 1, 1990. (b) The facility capacity authorized in the facility's original hazardous facilities permit, grant of interim status, or any state or local agency permit allowing the construction or operation of a facility for the burning of hazardous waste, granted on or after January 1, 1990. The EIR requirement does not apply to any project which exclusively burns any of the following: (a) digester gas produced from manure or any other solid or semi -solid animal waste; (b) methane gas produced from a disposal site which is used only for the disposal of solid waste; (c) forest, agricultural, wood or other biomass wastes; (d) hazardous waste in an incineration unit that is transportable and which is either at a site for not longer than three years or is part of a remedial or removal action; (e) refinery waste burned in a flare on the site of generation; (f) methane gas produced at a municipal sewage treatment plant and burned in a flare; (g) hazardous waste, or hazardous waste as a supplemental fuel, as part of a research, development, or demonstration project which, consistent with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, has been determined to be innovative and experimental by the State Department of Health Services and which is limited in type and quantity of waste to that necessary to determine the efficacy and performance capabilities of the technology or process; provided, however, that any facility which operated as a research, development or demonstration project and for which an applica- tion is thereafter submitted for a hazardous waste facility permit for operation other than as a research, development or demonstration project shall be considered a new facility for the burning of hazardous waste, and therefore subject to EIR requirements; (h) soils contaminated only with petroleum fuels or the vapors from these soils; (I) exclusively treats less than 3,000 pounds of hazardous waste per day in a thermal processing unit operated in the absence of open flame, and submits a worst -case health RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -33- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study risk assessment of the technology to the State Department of Health Services for review and distribution to the interested public. This assessment shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines set forth in the Air Toxics Assessment Manual of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association; (j) less than 1,200 pounds of infectious waste per day, as defined in Section 25117.5 of the Health and Safety Code, on hospital sites; (k) chemicals and fuels as part of firefighter training; (1) exclusively conducts open burns of explosives subject to the requirements of the local or regional air pollution control district and in compliance with OSHA and Cal -OSHA regulations; or (m) exclusively conducts onsite burning of less than 3,000 pounds per day of fumes directly from a manufacturing or commercial process. Such projects are not exempt from the other requirements of CEQA, the State Guidelines, or these Local Guidelines. This section does not apply to any project over which the State Energy Resources Conservation. and Development Commission has assumed jurisdiction per Health and Safety Code Section 25500 et seq. This section also does not apply to projects listed in paragraph three (3) of Guidelines Section 5.09 (c) and (d) if the facilities manage hazardous waste identified or listed on or after January 1, 1992. 5.10 Evaluating Impacts on Historical Resources. Projects that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, as defined in Guidelines Section 9.18, are projects that may have a significant effect on the environment, thus requiring consideration under CEQA. Particular attention and care should be given when considering such projects, especially projects involving the demolition of an historical resource, since such demolitions have been determined to cause a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration ofthe resource or its immediate surroundings, such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project: RCTC/RVPUB/313897 .1999 Bat Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Study (a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources or its identification in an historical resources survey, unless the Lead Agency establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or (c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by the Lead Agency for purposes of CEQA. Generally, a project that follows either one of the following sets of standards and guidelines will be considered mitigated to a level of less than significance: (a) the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and_Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or (b) the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. In the event of an accidental discovery of a possible historical resource during construction of the project, the Commission may provide for the evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist or other professional. If the find is determined to be an historical resource, the Commission should take appropriate steps to implement appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures. Work on non -affected portions of the project, as determined by the Commission, may continue during the process. 5.11 Evaluating Impacts on Archaeological Sites. When a project will impact an archaeological site, the Commission shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in Guidelines Section 9.18. If the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall be treated and evaluated as such, and not as an archaeological resource. If the archaeological site does not meet the definition of an historical resource, but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource set forth in Section 21083.2 of the Public RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -35- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Stud Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with said provisions of the Public Resources Code. The time and cost limitations described in Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. If the archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor an historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process. In the event of an accidental discovery of a possible unique archaeological resource during construction of the project, the Commission may provide for the evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be a unique archaeological resource, the Commission should take appropriate steps to implement appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures. Work on non -affected portions of the project, as determined by the Commission, may continue during the process. When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the Project, the Commission shall comply with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d). In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the Commission shall comply with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). 5.12 Environmental Impact Assessment. The job of the Initial Study is to identify which environmental impacts may be significant. Based upon the Initial Study, Staff shall determine whether a proposed project may or will have a significant effect on the environment. Such determination shall be made in writing on the Environmental Impact Assessment Form (Form "C"). If Stafffinds that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it shall recommend that a Negative Declaration be prepared and adopted by the decision making body. If Staff finds that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but the effects can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, it shall recommend that a Mitigated RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -36- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Initial Sutdt_ Negative Declaration be prepared and adopted by the decision making body. If Staff finds that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, it shall recommend that an EIR be prepared and certified by the decision making body. 5.13 Final Determination. The Board of Directors shall have the final responsibility for determining whether an EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be required for any project. The Board of Directors' determination shall be final and conclusive on all persons, including Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies, except as provided in Section 15050(c) of the State Guidelines. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -37- 61999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration 6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6.01 Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration (Form "E") shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the environment. (See Guidelines Sections 9.35 and 9.37.) 6.02 Decision to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "E") shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but: (a) The project applicant has agreed to revise the project or the Commission can revise the project to avoid these significant effects or to mitigate the effects to a point where it is clear that no significant effects would occur c�1d (b) There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Commission that the revised project may have a significant effect. If an applicant proposes mitigation measures, the project plans must be revised to incor- porate these mitigation measures before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review. It is insufficient to require an applicant to adopt mitigation measures after final adoption of the Negative Declaration or to state , that mitigation measures will be recommended on the basis of a future study. The Commission must know the measures at the time the Negative Declaration is adopted in order for them to be evaluated and accepted as adequate mitigation. Evidence of agreement by the applicant to such mitigation should be in the record prior to public review. Except where noted, the procedural requirements for the preparation and approval of a Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration are the same. 6.03 Contracting for Preparation of Negative Declaration. The Commission, when acting as Lead Agency, is responsible for preparing all documents required pursuant to CEQA. The documents may be prepared by Staff or by private consultants pursuant to a contract with the RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -38- *1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration Commission, but they must be the Commission's product and reflect the independent judgment of the Commission. 6.04 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. When Staff, based upon the Initial Study, recommends to the decision making body the adop- tion of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "D") shall be provided to the public, to all Responsible Agencies and to every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project at least twenty (20) days before the final adoption of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration by the decision making body. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be mailed to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously filed a written request with the Commission. A copy of the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study shall be attached to the Notice of Intent to Adopt that is sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project The Commission may charge a fee for this service, except to other public agencies. The Commission may require requests for notices to be renewed annually. Ifthe documents are submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation, the public review period shall be at least as long as the period of review by the State Clearinghouse. (See Guidelines Section 6.06.) The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall contain the following information: (a) The period during which comments shall be received. (b) The date, time and place of any public meetings or hearings on the proposed project. (c) A brief description of the proposed project and its location. (d) The address where copies of the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and all documents referenced in the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -39- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration (e) The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") list on which the proposed project site is located, if applicable, and the corresponding information from the applicant's statement. (See Guidelines Section 2.04.) (f) The significant effects on the environment, if any, anticipated as a result ofthe proposed project. The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study must reflect the independent judgment of the Commission. 6.05 Posting and Publication of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Commission shall have a copy of the Notice of Intent to Adopt, the Draft Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study posted at the Commission's offices and made available for public inspection. The Notice must be provided either twenty (20) or thirty (30) days prior to final adoption of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Notice must also be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which the Project is located and must remain posted for a minimum of twenty (20) days, unless otherwise required by law to be posted for thirty (30) days. The Clerk shall post the Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. As stated in Guidelines Section 6.04, notice shall be given by mail to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice. In addition, it must be given by at least one of the following procedures: (a) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper oflargest circulation from among the newspapers ofgeneral circulation in those areas. (b) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located. (c) Direct mailing to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The Commission shall consider all comments received during the public review period for the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Although the Commission RCTC/RVPUBr313897 -40- 01999 Best Best do Krieger L.LP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration is not required to respond in writing to comments it receives either during or after the public review period, the Commission may want to provide a written response to all comments if it will not delay action on the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, since any comment received prior to final action on the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration can form the basis of a legal challenge. A written response which refutes the comment or adequately explains the Commission's action in light of the comment, will assist the Commission in defending against a legal challenge. The Commission shall notify any public agency which comments on a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration of the public hearing or hearings, if any, on the project for which the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. 6.06 Submission of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration to State Clearinghouse. A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation in the following situations: (a) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared by a Lead Agency that is a state agency. (b) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared by a public agency where a state agency is a Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, or otherwise has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project. (c) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is for a project identified in State Guidelines Section 15206 as being of statewide, regional, or areawide significance. A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration may also be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation if a state agency has special expertise with regard to the environmental impacts involved. When the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period shall be at least thirty (30) days. When a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse, a Notice of Completion (Form "H") should be included as a cover sheet. When such documents are submitted to the State Clearinghouse, RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -41- °1999 Best Best tit Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Qualm Act (1999) Ne _ 've Declaration the public agency shall include, in addition to the printed copy, a copy of the document in electronic format on a diskette or by electronic mail transmission if available. A shorter review period by the State Clearinghouse for a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration can be requested by the decision making body. The shortened review period shall not be less than twenty (20) days. Such a request must be made in writing by the Lead Agency to the Office of Planning and Research. The decision making body may designate by resolution or ordinance'an individual authorized to request a shorter review period. Any approval of a shortened review period must be given prior to, and reflected in, the public notice. However, a shortened review period shall not be approved by the Office of Planning and Research for any proposed project of statewide, regional or areawide environmental significance, as defined by State Guidelines Section 15206. 6.07 Special Notice Reauirements for Waste and Fuel Burning Projects. For any waste burning project, as defined in Guidelines Section 5.09, Notice of Intent (see Guidelines Section 6.04) shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested it and shall also be given by all three of the procedures listed in Guidelines Section 6.05. In addition, Notice shall be given by direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property within one-fourth mile of any parcel or parcels on which such a project is located. These notice requirements apply only to those projects described in Guidelines Section 5.09. These notice requirements do not preclude the Commission from providing additional notice by other means if desired. 6.08 Content of Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration must be prepared directly by or under contract to the Commission and should generally resemble Form "E". It shall contain the following information: (a) A brief description of the project proposed, including any commonly used name for the project, if any. (b) The location of the project and the name of the project proponent. (c) A finding that the project as proposed will not have a significant effect on the environment. (d) An attached_ copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -42- °1999 Best Best do Krieger L.L.P Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration (e) For a Mitigated Negative Declaration, feasible mitigation measures included in the pro- ject to substantially lessen or avoid potentially significant effects, which must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Such permit conditions, agreements, and measures must be consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by case law. 6.09 Adoption of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Following the publication, posting or mailing of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, but in no event sooner than twenty (20) days following the date of such publication, posting or mailing, the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration may be presented to the decision making body at a regular or special meeting. Prior to adoption, the Commission shall independently review and analyze the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and find that the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. If the decision making body finds that the projectwill not have a significant effect on the environ- ment, it shall adopt the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. When adopting the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Commission shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which it based its decision. If the decision making body fords that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, it shall order the preparation of a Draft E1R and the filing of a Notice of Preparation of a Draft E1R. Recirculation should be considered if substantial new mitigation is added after public review (see Guidelines Section 6.12). 6.10 Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Program for Mitigated Negative Declaration. When adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Guidelines Section 6.09, the Commission shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program to assure that mitigation measures which are required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment will be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures and implemented by RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -43- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration the project proponent or other responsible party in a timely manner, in accordance with conditions of project approval. The Commission shall also specify the location and the custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which it based its decision. There is no requirement that the reporting or monitoring program be circulated for public review; however, the Commission may choose to circulate it for public comments along with the Negative Declaration. The mitigation measures required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment must be adopted as conditions of project approval. This reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to assure compliance during the implementation or construction ofa project and shall otherwise comply with the requirements described in Guidelines Section 7.31. If a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency has required that certain conditions be incorporated into the project, the Commission may request that agency to prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The Commission shall. also require that prior to the close of the public review period for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Guidelines Section 6.04), the Responsible or Trustee Agency submit detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures, or refer the Commission to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to the Commission by a Responsible or Trustee Agency shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are within the Responsible or Trustee Agency's authority. Local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for this program. Therefore, the Commission can charge the project proponent a fee to cover actual costs of program processing and implementation. Transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program required to be adopted by the Commission shall be submitted to the regional transportation planning agency where the project is located if the project impacts have statewide, regional or areawide significance according to criteria developed pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083. The transportation planning agency is required by law to adopt guidelines for the submittal of these reporting or monitoring programs, so the Commission may wish to tailor its submittal to such guidelines. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 - 4_ °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration 6. l 1 Approval or Disapproval of Project. At the time of adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the decision making body may consider the project for purposes of approval or disapproval. Prior to approving the project, the decision malting body shall consider the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with any written comments received and considered during the public review period, and shall approve or disapprove the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. In making a finding as to whether there is any substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the factors listed in Guidelines Section 5.07 should be considered. (See Guidelines Section 7.29 for approval requirements for facilities which may emit hazardous air emissions near schools.) 6.12 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated NegativeDeclaration. ANegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be recirculated when the document must be substantially revised after the public review period but prior to its adoption. A "substantial revision" is defined as a new and avoidable significant effect for which mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order_to reduce the effect to a level of insignificance. A "substantial revision" can also include when the Commission determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce the potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: (a) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures. (b) New project revisions are added in response to written or oral comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. (c) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -45- 41999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Qualtry Act (1999) Negadve Declaration (d) New information is added to the Negative Declaration or Nfitigated Declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. If, after preparation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Commission determines that the project requires an EIIt, it shall circulate the Draft EIR for consultation and review and advise reviewers in writing that a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Declaration had previously been circulated for the project. 6.13 Notice of Determination on a Project for which a Proposed Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been Avvroved. Following consideration and approval of a project for which the Commission is Lead Agency, the decision malting body shall order Staffto pre- pare and file a Notice of Determination (Form "F") which shall contain the following: (a) An identification of the project including its common name where possible and its location; (b) A brief description of the project; (c) The date on which the Commission approved the project; (d) The determination of the Commission that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (e) A statement that a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; and (f) The address where a copy of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration may be examined. The Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of each county in which the project will be located within five working days of project approval. The Commission is encouraged to make copies of filed notices available in electronic format on the Internet. Such electronic notices are in addition to the posting requirements of the CEQA Guidelines and the Public Resources Code. The Clerk must post the Notice of Determination within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for a minimum of thirty (30) days. Thereafter, the Clerk shall return the notice to the Commission witha notation of the period it was posted. The Commission shall retain the RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -46- '1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental a arty Act (1999) N •_alive Declaration notice for not less than nine (9) months If the project requires discretionary approval from any State agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with the Office of Planning and Research. Simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Clerk, Staff shall cause a copy ofthe Notice ofDetermination to be posted at the Commission office. When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the Commission adopts the Negative Declaration, the copy must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the Commission's determination. If such a request is made following the Commission's determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. The recipients of such documents may be charged a fee reasonably related to the cost of providing the service. The filing and posting of a Notice of Determnation with the Clerk, and, if necessary, with the Office ofPlanning and Research, usually starts a thirty (30) day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. When separate notices are filed for successive phases of the same overall project, the 30-day statute of limitation to challenge the subsequent phase begins to run when the second notice is filed. Failure to file the Notice results in a one hundred eighty (180) day statute of limitations. 6.14 Addendum to Negative Declaration. The Commission may prepare an addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. The Commission may also prepare an addendum to an adopted negative declaration when none of the conditions calling for a subsequent negative declaration have occurred. (See Guidelines Section 6.15 below.) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be attached to the adopted Negative Declaration. The Commission shall consider the addendum with the adopted Negative Declaration prior to project approval. 6.15 Subsequent Negative Declaration. When a Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project, or when an EIR has been certified, a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR must be prepared in the following instances: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous E1R or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -47- °1999 Best Best & Krieger L LP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (c) New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or the Negative Declaration was adopted which shows any of the following: (1) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; (2) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (3) Mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s) previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents declined to adopt the mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s); or (4) Mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s) which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s). The Commission as Lead Agency would then determine whether a Subsequent EIR, Negative Declaration or addendum would be applicable. Subsequent Negative Declarations must be given the same notice and public review period as other Negative Declarations. The Subsequent Negative Declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. 6.16 Private Project Costs. For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall bear all costs incurred by the Commission in preparing the Initial Study and in preparing and filing the Negative Declaration and Notice of Deternunation. RCTC/RVP'UB/313$97 -48- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration 6.17 Filing Fees for Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources. At the time a Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration is filed with the Clerk, a fee of $1,250 shall be paid to the Clerk for projects which will adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. These fees are collected by the Clerk on behalf of the California Department of Fish and Game ("DFG"). Only one filing fee is required for each project unless the project is tiered or phased and separate environmental documents are prepared. For projects where a Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies file separate Notices of Determination, only the Lead Agency is required to pay the fee. Note: The Clerk customarily charges a documentary handling fee for each project in addition to the filing fee specified above. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to help determine the correct amount. For private projects, the Commission shall pass these costs on to the project applicant. No fees are required for projects with a "de minimis" effect on fish and wildlife resources, or for certain projects undertaken by the DFG and implemented through a contract with a non-profit entity or local government agency. A project with a "de minimis" effect has no potential for adverse effect on fish and wildlife. This is an important exception. DFG considers the following projects as likely to have "de minimis" effects on fish and wildlife, depending on the specific facts of each project: (1) Projects which enhance fish and wildlife, and their habitats and result in no accompanying adverse impacts to fish or wildlife; (2) Lot line adjustments; (3) Building remodeling; (4) Annexations; (5) Redevelopment on existing urban subdivisions with no wildlife habitat; (6) Infill of undeveloped urban lots; (7) Adoption of a General Plan, where CEQA requires a subsequem discretionary project approval before any physical change to natural habitat is permitted. If the Commission believes that a project will have a "dg minimis" effect on wildlife resources, it should file the Certificate of Fee Exemption attached as Form "L". This form RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -49- °1999 Best Best do Krieger L LP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (1999) Negative Declaration requires the Commission to set forth facts in support of the fee exemption. These facts should include: (1) the name and address of the project proponent; (2) a brief description of the project and its location; (3) a statement that an initial study has been prepared by the Commission to evaluate the project's effects on wildlife resources, if any; (4) a declaration that there is no evidence before the Commission that the project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources; and (5) a declaration that the Commission has, on the basis of substantial evidence, "rebutted" the presumption of adverse effect contained in the regulations. A presumption of adverse effect occurs if the project has the potential for adverse effects on the fish and wildlife resources as listed on Form "L". To rebut the presumption of adverse effect, the Commission should explain in the declaration why the project would not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife and reference any supporting evidence. These findings should be made at the time of approval of the Negative Declaration and attached to Form "L" when submitted to the County. Two copies of this form must be filed with the Notice of Determination in order to obtain the fee exemption. If the Commission believes that a project has been undertaken by the DFG, that the project's costs are payable from one or more of the sources indicated in the Fish and Game Code, and that the project is being implemented through a contract with a non-profit entity or a local government agency, the DFG filing does not apply. Since the DFG has not yet adopted regulations to govern this exemption, including a. new "Certificate of Fee Exemption," the Commission may wish to use Form L and make appropriate modifications to reflect this exemption. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -50- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7.01 Decision to Prepare an EIR. An EIR shall be prepared whenever there is substantial evidence in light of the whole rercord which supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (See Guidelines Sections 9.35 and 9.37.) The record may include the Initial Study or other documents or studies prepared to assess the project's environmental impacts. 7.02 Contracting for Preparation of EIRs. If a Draft E1R, E1R or Focused EIR is prepared under a contract to the Commission, the contract must be executed within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the Commission sends a Notice ofPreparation. The Commission may take longer to execute the contract if the project applicant and the Commission mutually agree to an extension of the 45-day time limit. The Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR prepared under contract must be the Commission's product. Staff, together with such consultant help as may be required, shall independently review and analyze the Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR to verify its accuracy, objectivity and completeness prior to presenting it to the decision making body. The Draft E1R, EIR or Focused EIR made available for public review must reflect the independent judgment of the Commission. Staff may require such information and data from the person or entity proposing to carry out the project as it deems necessary for completion of the Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR. 7.03 Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR. After Staff determines that an E1R will be required for a proposed project, the Commission as Lead Agency shall prepare and send a Notice of Preparation (Form "G") to each Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency involved with the project. Responsible and Trustee Agencies have thirty (30) days to respond to the Notice of Preparation. When one or more state agencies will be a Responsible Agency, the Commission shall also send a copy of the Notice of Preparation (which also identifies the Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies to which the Notice was sent) to the Office of Planning and Research. The Commission shall send copies of the Notice of Preparation by certified mail or any other method of transmittal which provides it with a record that the Notice was RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -51- .1999 Ben Best & Krieger LL,P Local Guidelines for Implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report received. The Notice must also be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which the project is located for thirty (30) days. The Clerk shall post the Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. At a minimum, the Notice of Preparation shall include: (a) A description of the project; (b) The location of the project indicated either on an attached map (preferably a copy of the USGS 15' or 71/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name) or by a street address in an urban area; (c) The probable environmental effects of the project; (d) The name and address of the consulting firm retained to prepare the Draft EIR, if applicable; and (e) The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") list on which the proposed site is located, if applicable, and the corresponding information from the applicant's statement. (See Guidelines Section 2.04.) 7.04 Preparation ofDraft EIR. The Commission as Lead Agency is responsible for preparing a Draft EIR, and may begin preparation immediately without awaiting responses to the Notice of Preparation. However, information conununicated to the Commission not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the Commission's Notice of Preparation shall be included in the Draft EIR. 7.05 Consultation with Other Agencies and Persons. To expedite consultation in response to the Notice of Preparation, the Commission as Lead Agency, a Responsible Agency, or a project applicant may request a meeting among the agencies involved to assist the Commission in determining the scope and content of the environmental information that Responsible Agencies may require. The Commission must convene the meeting as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the request. Prior to completion of the Draft EIR, the Commission shall consult with each Responsible Agency and any public agency which has jurisdiction by law over the project. The Commission shall also consult with any city or county which borders the project or within which the project is located, unless otherwise designated annually by agreement between the Commission and any other city or county. The RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -52- 61999 Best Best do Krieger L.L.P Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Envirownental Impact Report Commission may also consult with any individual who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impacts involved with a project. The Commission may also consult directly with any person or organization it believes will be concerned with the environmental effects of the project including iany interested individuals and organizations of which the Commission is reasonably aware. The purpose of this consultation is to "scope" the EIR's range of analysis. . For a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance as defined in State Guidelines Section 15206, the Commission shall consuh with transportation planning agencies and public agencies which have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions that could be affected by the project. Consultation shall be conducted so that the Commission may obtain information concerning a project's effects on major local arterials, public transit, freeways, highways, and rail transit service within the jurisdiction of a transportation planning agency or a public agency consulted by the Commission . A transportation planning agency or public agency which provides information to the Commission shall be notified of, and provided with copies of, environmental documents pertaining to the project. The Commission as Lead Agency may charge and collect from the applicant a fee not to exceed the actual cost of the consultations. A Responsible Agency or other public agency shall only make comments regarding those activities within its area of expertise or which are required to be carried out or approved by it. These comments must be supported by specific documentation. Any mitigation measures submitted to the Commission by a Responsible or Trustee Agency shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are within the Responsible or Trustee Agency's authority. Caltrans may require the Commission as Lead Agency to call at least one scoping session before an EIR is prepared for projects which may affect highways or facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. For projects where federal involvement might require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Commission as Lead Agency shall consult with the appropriate federal agencies as provided in Section 15110 and Sections 15220-15228 of the State Guidelines. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -53- 01999 Best Beat & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental impact Report 7.06 Early Consultation on Projects Involving Permit Issuance. Where the project involves issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, the Commission, upon request of the applicant, shall meet with the applicant prior to the filing of the application regarding the range of actions, potential alternatives, mitigation measures and significant . effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. The Commission may also consult with concerned persons identified by the applicant and persons who have made written requests to be consulted. Such requests must be made not later than thirty (30) days after the Commission's decision to prepare an EIR. 7.07 Airport Land Use Plan. When the Commission prepares an EIR for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if such a plan has not been adopted for a project within two (2) nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Commission shall utilize the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics to assist in the preparation of the OR relative to potential airport or related safety hazards and noise problems. 7.08 General Aspects of an EIR. Both a Draft and Final E1R must contain the information outlined in Guidelines Section 7.12. Each element must be covered, and when elements are not separated into distinct sections, the document must state where in the document each element is covered. The body of the EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, diagrams and similar relevant information. Highly technical and specialized analyses and data should be included in appendices. Appendices may be prepared in separate volumes, but must be equally available to the public for examination. All documents used in preparation of the EIR must be referenced. An EIR shall not include "trade secrets," locations of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or any other information subject to the disclosure restrictions of the Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6254). The EIR should discuss environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. Effects dismissed in the Initial Study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quaht, Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report The Initial Study should be used to focus the EIR so that the EIR identifies and discusses only the specific environmental problems or aspects of the project which have been identified as potentially significant or important. A copy of the Initial Study shall be attached to the DR to provide a basis for limiting the impacts discussed. The EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reason for determining that various effects of a project that could possibly be considered significant were not found to be significant and consequently were not discussed in detail in the EIR. The Commission should also note any conclusion by it that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation. The EIR should omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and emphasize feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to projects. 7.09 Use of Registered Consultants in Preparing EIRs. An EIR is not a technical document that can be prepared only by a registered consultant or professional. However, state statutes may provide that only registered professionals can prepare certain technical studies which will be used in or which will control the detailed design, construction, or operation of the pro- posed project and which will be prepared in support of an EIR. 7.10 Incorporation by Reference. An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Any incorporated document shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR. Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, that document shall be made available to the public for inspection at the Commission's offices. The EIR shall state where incorporated documents will be available for inspection. Where an EIR uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible, or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. When information from an EIR that has previously been reviewed through the state review system ("State Clearinghouse") is incorporated by the Commission, the state identification number ofthe incorporated document should be included in the summary or text of the EIR. 7.11 Standards for Adequacy of an EIR. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -55- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Repon decision which takes into account the environmental consequences of the project. The evaluation of environmental effects need not be exhaustive, but must be within the scope of what is reasonably feasible. The E1R should be written and presented in such a way that it can be understood by governmental decision makers and members ofthe public. Agood faith effort at completeness is necessary. The adequacy of an E1R is assessed in terms of what is reasonable in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a Lead Agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors. There is no need to unreasonably delay adoption of an EIR in order to include results of studies in progress, even if those studies will shed some additional light on subjects related to the project. 7.12 Form and Content ofE1R. The text of the EIR should nonnally be less than 150 pages. For proposals of unusual scope or complexity, the EIR should normally be less than 300 pages. The required contents of an EIR are set forth in Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State Guidelines. Briefly summarizing each of those requirements, an EIR shall contain: (a) A table of contents or an index. (b) A brief summary of the proposed project and its environmental impacts. (c) A description of the proposed project, including its underlying purpose and a list of permit and other approvals required to implement the project. (See Guidelines Section 7.16 regarding analysis of future project expansion.) (d) A description of the project's physical environmental conditions from both a local and regional perspective at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice ofPreparation is published, at the time environmental analysis begins. (State Guidelines Section 15125.) This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which the Commission determines whether an impact is significant. (e) A discussion of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general and regional plans. . RC:'C/RVPUB/313897 -56- .1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report (f) A description of the direct and indirect significant environmental impacts of the proposed project explaining which, if any, can be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance, indicating reasons that various possible significant effects were determined not to be significant and denoting any significant effects which are unavoidable or could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Direct and indirect significant effects shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both short-term and long-term effects. An analysis of a range of alternatives to the proposed project which could feasibly attain the project's objectives as discussed in Guidelines Section 7.15. A description of any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented if, and only if, the EIR is being prepared in connection with: (1) The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency; (2) The adoption by a Local Agency Formation Commission of a resolution malting determinations; or (3) A project which will be subject to the requirement for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. (I) An analysis of the growth -inducing impacts of the proposed action. The discussion should includeways in which the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. (j) A discussion of any significant, reasonably anticipated future developments and the cumulative effects of all proposed and anticipated action as discussed in Guidelines Section 7.16. (k) In certain situations, a regional analysis should be completed for certain impacts, such as air quality. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -57- .1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report (1) A discussion of any economic or social effects, to the extent that they cause or may be used to determine significant environmental impacts. (m) A statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and, therefore, were not discussed in the EIR. (n) The identity of all federal, state or local agencies or other organizations and private individuals consulted in preparing the EIR, and the identity of the persons, firm or agency preparing the EIR, by contract or other authorization. To the fullest extent possible, the Commission should integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review and consultation requirements. (o) A discussion of those potential effects of the proposed project on the environment which the Commission has determined are or may be significant. The discussion on other effects may be limited to a brief explanation as to why those effects are not potentially significant. (p) A description of feasible measures,.as set forth in Guidelines Section 7.14, which could. minimize significant adverse impacts. 7.13 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts. An EIR must discuss cumulative impacts when the project's incremental effect is "cumulatively considerable" as defined in Guidelines Section 9.07. Where the Commission is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not "cumulatively considerable," it need not consider that effect significant, but must briefly describe the basis for this conclusion. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The Commission must identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant. (a) A cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the OR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _58_ °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report (b) An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact is de minimis and thus is not significant. A de minimis contribution means that the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. (c) The discussion of cumulative impacts in an Ea must focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute, rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The discussion of significant cumulative impacts must meet either of the following elements: (1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects causing related or cumulative impacts including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the Conunission; or (2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. (d) When utilizing a list, as suggested above, factors to consider when determining whether to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource being examined and the location and type of project. Location may be important, for example, -when water quality impacts are involved,since projects outside the watershed would probably not contribute to a cumulative effect. Project type may be important, for example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of traffic. (e) The Commission should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. (f) A cumulative impacts discussion contained in previously certified EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions for tiering and program EIRs. No further cumulative impacts analysis is required when a project is consistent with a general, specific, master or comparable programmatic plan and the Commission RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -59- 01999 Best Best at Krieger L LP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental impact Report determines that the regional or area wide cumulative impacts of the proposed project have already been adequately addressed in a certified EIR for that plan. (g) If a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan, zoning, action, or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or action, then an EIR should not further analyze that cumulative impact. 7.14 Analysis of Mitigation Measures. The discussion of mitigation measures in an EIR must distinguish between measures proposed by project proponents and other measures proposed by Lead, Responsible or Trust Agencies_ This discussion shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be disclosed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effects of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way. If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be disclosed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project itself. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulating, or other public project, mitigationmeasures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. Mitigation measures must also be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards. Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation; restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with. the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, the project's impact on the historical resource shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Qualtry Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report The Commission should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors must be considered and discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site: (a) Preservation in place is the preferred mamier of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. (b) Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; (2) Incorporation of sites within parks, green space, or other open spaces; (3) Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before .building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site; (4) Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to excavation. Such studies must be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Data recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the Commission determines that existing testing or studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential- information from and about the archaeological or historical resource, provided that the determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. 7.15 Analysis of Alternatives in an EIR. The alternatives analysis must describe and evaluate the comparative merits of a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but which would avoid or substantially lessen any ofthe significant effects of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, and it need not consider alternatives which are infeasible. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -61- 61999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report Purpose of the Alternatives Analysis: An EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. For this reason, a discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect ofthe project, even ifthese alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. Selection of a Range of Reasonable Alternatives: The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects, even if those alternatives would be more costly or would impede to some degree the attainment of the project's objectives. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the Commission and rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons for rejection. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives should be included in the administrative record. Amongthe factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an OR are: (a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (b) infeasibility; or (c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Evaluation of Alternatives: The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. The Rule of Reason: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" which courts have held means that an alternatives discussion must be reasonable in scope and content. Therefore, the EIR must set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit public participation, informed decision making, and a reasoned choice. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -62- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones the Commission determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. An E1R need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. Feasibility of Alternatives: The factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives include: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans or regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context); and whether the proponent already owns the alternative site or can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the site. No one factor establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives. Alternative Locations: The first step in the alternative location analysis is to determine whether any of the significant effects of the project could be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. This is the � question in this analysis. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. The second step in this analysis is to determine whether any of the alternative locations are feasible. If the Commission concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose its reasons, and it should include them in the OR. Where a previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts for a project with the same basic purpose, the Commission should review the previous document. To the extent the circumstances have remained substantially the same with respect to an alterative, the EIR may rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility of the potential project alternative. The "No Project" Alternative: The specific alternative of "no project" must be evaluated along with its impacts. The purpose of describing and analyzing the no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -63- *1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report analysis, therefore, is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project's environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline. A discussion of the "no project" alternative should proceed along one of two lines: (a) When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future. Typically, this is a situation where other projects initiated under the existing plan will continue while the new plan is developed. Thus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan. (b) If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the "no project" alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. This discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this "no project" consequence should be discussed. After defining the no project alternative, the Commission should proceed to analyze the impacts of the no project alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the "no project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the OR must also identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Remote or Speculative Alternatives: An OR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. 7.16 Analysis of Future Expansion. An ER must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion (or other similar future modifications) if there is credible and substantial evidence that: RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -64- 01999 Bey Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report (a) The future expansion or action is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (b) The future expansion or action is likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. Absent these two circumstances, future expansion of a project need not be discussed. CEQA does not require speculative discussion of future development which is unspecific or uncertain. However, if future action is not considered now, it must be considered and envi- ronmentally evaluated before it is actually implemented. 7.17 Notice of Completion of Draft EIR. Upon completion of a Draft EIR, Staff shall file a Notice of Completion (Form "H") with the Office of Planning and Research in a printed hard copy or in electronic form on a diskette or by electronic mail transmission. The Commission is encouraged to make copies of filed notices available in electronic format on the Internet. Such electronic postings are in addition to the procedures required by the CEQA Guidelines and the Public Resources Code. The Notice shall contain a brief description of the proposed project, the location of the proposed project, current land use, development type and project issues discussed in the EIR. The Commission shall provide public notice of the completion of a Draft EIR at the same time it sends a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research. The Notice of Availability of Draft EIR (Form "K") shall specify the period during which comments will be received on the Draft EIR, the date, time and place of any .public hearings on the proposed project, a brief description of the project and its location, the significant effects on the environment, if any, anticipated as a result ofthe project, and the address where copies of the Draft EIR and all documents referenced in the Draft EIR are available for review. Public agencies are encouraged to make copies of filed Notices of Completion available in electronic format on the Internet. Notice shall be given to the last known name and address of all organizations and indivi- duals who have previously requested it. In addition, notice shall be given by at least one of the following procedures: RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -65- 61999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Envirotunental Impact Repon (a) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas. (b) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located. (c) Direct mailing to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project, as identified on the latest equalized assessment roll. The Notice shall be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which the project is located for a period of thirty (30) days. The Clerk must post the Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. Notice shall be mailed to any person who has filed a written request with the Commission. The Commission may require these requests to be renewed annually and may charge a fee for the reasonable cost of providing this service. A project will not be invalidated due to a failure to send a requested notice provided there has been substantial compliance with these notice provisions. Copies of the Draft MR shall also be made available at the Commission office for review by members of the general public. Any person obtaining a copy of the Draft EIR shall reimburse the Commission for the actual cost of its reproduction. Copies of the Draft EIR should also be furnished to appropriate public library systems. 7.18 Submission of Draft EIR to State Clearinghouse, A Draft EIR must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies in the following situations: (a) The Draft E1R is prepared by a Lead Agency which is a state agency. (b) The Draft EIR is prepared by a public agency where a state agency is a Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, or otherwise has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project. (c) The Draft EIR is for a project identified in State Guidelines Section 15206 as being of statewide, regional, or areawide significance. A Draft EIR may be submitted to the State Clearinghouse where a state agency has special expertise with regard to the environmental impacts involved. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 . °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report Where the Draft EIR will be reviewed through the State review process handled by the State Clearinghouse, use a Notice of Completion (Form "H") as a cover sheet. Ten copies of the documents must be sent to the State Clearinghouse for circulation. 7.19 Special Notice Requirements for Waste and Fuel Burning Projects. For any waste burning project, as defined in Guidelines Section 5.09, Notice of Completion shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested notice. In addition, Notice shall be given by direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property within one-fourth mile of any parcel or parcels on which such a project is located. 7.20 Review of Draft EIR by Other Agencies and Persons. Upon the filing and posting of a Notice of Completion, Staff shall consult with and obtain comments from each Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, and any other public agency having jurisdiction by law over resources which may be affected by the project. Those public agencies having jurisdiction by law over the project shall include, but are not necessarily limited to: 1) Any city or county bordering the project area; 2) Transportation planning agencies and public agencies with transportation facilities located within the project area; 3) The State Department of Water Resources, when a project is located within one mile of a facility of the State Water Resources Development System. Staff may also consult with and obtain comments from any person known to have special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved whose comments relative to the Draft EIR would be desirable. Staff may also consult with any member of the public who has filed a written request for notice with the Commission and any person whom the project applicant believes will be concemed with the environmental'effects of the project. 7.21 Time for Review of Draft EIR: Failure to Comment. A period of between (30) and sixty (60) days from the filing of the Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR shall be allowed for review of and comment on the Draft EIR., except in unusual situations. ff a state agency is a Responsible Agency, or if the Draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse, the review period shall be at least forty-five (45) days. When a Draft EIR is submitted to the RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -67- *1999 Best Best & Imager LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Repon State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period shall be at least as long as the period of review established by the State Clearinghouse. A shorter review period of the Draft MR by the State Clearinghouse can be requested by the Commission ; however, a shortened review period shall not be less than thirty (30) days for a Draft EIR. Any request for a shortened review period must be made in writing by the Commission to the Office of Planning and Research. The Commission may designate a person to make these requests. A shortened review period is not available for any proposed project of statewide, regional or areawide environmental significance as determined pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15206. Any approval of a shortened review period shall be given prior to, and reflected in, the public notices. In the event a public agency, group, or person whose comments on a Draft EIR are solicited fails to comment within the required time period, it shall be presumed, absent a written request for a specific extension of time for review and comment, together with the reasons for the request, that such agency, group, or person has no comment to make. Continued planning activities concerning the proposed project, short offormal approval, may continue during the period set aside for review and comment on the Draft EIR. 7.22 Public Hearing on Draft EIR. A public hearing on the Draft EIR document is not required but may be held by the decision making body either in separate proceedings or in conjunction with other proceedings of the Commission. The procedures for the manner of conducting the public hearings shall be described at the time the hearing convenes. The Draft EIR should be used as the outline for discussion at the public hearing. If a public hearing is held, it shall be conducted at least fourteen (14) days after the filing of the Notice of Completion, but in no event after the time set for expiration of the comment period. Public notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be posted in a conspicuous location at the Commission office and published in a newspaper of general circulation at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the hearing. The Notice also shall indicate the locations at which the Draft EIR is available for review. To the extent that the Commission maintains an RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -68- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Repon Internet web site, notice of all public hearings should be made available in electronic format on that site. 7.23 Response to Comments on Draft EIR. The Commission as Lead Agency shall evaluate any comments on environmental issues received during the public review period for the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response to those comments. As stated below, the Commission should also consider evaluating and responding to any comments received after the public review period. The response of the Commission may take the form of a revision of the Draft EIR, an attachment to the Draft Ent, or some other oral or written response which is adequate under the circumstances of the project. The response must describe the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised in the comment, such as revisions to the proposed project which mitigate anticipated impacts or objections. Ifthe Commission's position is at variance with specific recommendations or suggestions raised in the comment, the Commission's response must detail the reasons why such recommendations or suggestions were not accepted. Moreover, the Commission shall respond to any specific suggestions for project alternatives or mitigation measures for significant impacts, unless such alternatives or mitigation measures are facially infeasible. The response shall contain recommendations, when appropriate, to alter the project as described in the Draft EIR as a result of an analysis of the comments received. At least ten (10) days prior to certifying a Final EIR, the Commission shall provide a written response to any public agency which has made comments on the Draft EIR. The Commission is not required to respond to comments received after the public review period. However, the Commission should consider responding to rill commems if it will not delay action on the Final EIR, since any comment received before final action on the MR can form the basis of a legal challenge. A written response which refutes the comment or adequately explains the Commission's action in light of the comment, will assist the Commission in defending against a legal challenge. 7.24 Preparation and Contents of Final DR. Following the receipt of any comments on the Draft EIR as required herein, such comments shall be evaluated by Staff and a Final EIR shall be prepared. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _69_ 61999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report The Final EIR shall meet all requirements of Guidelines Sections 7.11 and 7.12 and shall consist of the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft, a section containing either verbatim or in summary the comments and recommendations received through the review and consultation process, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft, and a section containing the responses of the Commission to the significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. 7.25 Recirculation When New Information is Added to EIR. When significant new information is added to the EIR after notice and consultation, but before certification, the Commission shall give Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR again pursuant to Guidelines Section 7.03 and shall recirculate the Draft EIR for another public review period. The term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. The Commission shall also consult again with those persons contacted pursuant to Guidelines Section 7.17 before certifying the ELK New information is significant only when the EIR is changed in a way that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of a project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, including a feasible project alternative, that the project proponents decline to implement. Recirculation is required, for example, when: (1) new information added to an EIR discloses (a) a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, (b) a significant increase in the severity of an environmental impact (unless mitigation measures are also adopted that reduce the impact to a level ofinsignificance), or (c) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but which the project proponents decline to adopt; or (2) the Draft EIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions ofthe EIR, the Commission as Lead Agency need only RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -70- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Qualm Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified. A decision to not recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Recirculating an EIR can result in the Commission receiving more than one set of comments from reviewers. When the EIR is substantially revised and the entire EIR is recirculated, the Commission may require that reviewers submit new continents and need not respond to those comments received during the earlier circulation period. The Conunission shall advise reviewers, either within the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, that although part of the administrative record, the previous comments do not require a written response in the final EIR, and that new comments must be submitted for the revised EIR The Commission need only respond to those comments submitted in response to the recirculated revised EIR. The Commission must send to every agency, person, or organization that commented on the prior draft EIR a notice of the recirculation specifying that new comments must be submitted. . When the EIR is revised only in part and the Commission is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions ofthe EIR, the Commission may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions. The Commission need only respond to (I) comments received during the initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of the document that were not revised and recirculated; and (ii) comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions of the earlier OR that were revised and recirculated. The Commission's request that reviewers limit the scope of their comments shall be included either within the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR. When recirculating a revised DR, either in whole or in part, the Commission must, in the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the previously circulated draft EIR. 7.26 Certification of Final EIR. Following the preparation of the Final EIR, Staff shall review the Final EIR and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors regarding whether the Final EIR is in order and whether it has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State_ Guidelines and the Commission's Guidelines. The Final EIR and Staff RCTURVPUB/313897 -71- •1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Qua iit� Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report recommendation shall then be presented to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall independently review and analyze the Final EIR, and determine that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. The Board of Directors shall certify and find that: (1) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines and the Commission's Guidelines; (2) the Board ofDirectors has reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR before approving the project; and (3) the Final E1R reflects the independent judgment of the Cot unission . 7.27 Consideration of E1R Before Approval or Disapproval of Project. The EIR shall be reviewed and considered by the decision making body before it approves or disapproves the proposed project for which the OR was prepared. The decision making body may then proceed to consider the proposed project for purposes of approval or disapproval. Separately or in conjunction with its action approving or disapproving the project, the decision making body shall certify that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the E1R. 7.28 Findings. The decision making body shall not approve or carry out a project if a completed EIR identifies at least one significant effect of the project unless it makes one or more of the following written findings for each such significant effect, accompanied by a statement of the facts supporting each finding. Findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (a) That changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, and which are fully enforceable, through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. These mitigation measures must be expressly adopted or rejected in the E1R. There should be a description of the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures. Passing references to mitigation measures in other sections of the EIR, or in a Statement of Overriding Considerations, are not sufficient. (b) That such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the Commission. Such changes have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -72- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report (c) That specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The decision making body must make specific written findings stating why it has rejected an alternative to the project as infeasible. If any of the proposed alternatives could avoid or lessen an adverse impact for which no mitigation measures are proposed, the Commission shall analyze the feasibility of such alternative(s). If the project is to be approved without including such alternative(s), the Commission shall find that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and shall list such considerations before such approval. The decision making body shall not approve or carry out a project as proposed unless (1) the project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment or (2) its significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened (as determined through one or more of the findings indicated above), and any remaining, unavoidable significant effects have been found acceptable because of facts and circumstances described in a Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Guidelines Section 7.30). Statements in the Draft EIR or comments on the Draft EIR are not determinative of whether the project will have significant effects. When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of this section, the Commission as Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which it based its decision. 7.29 Special Findings Required for Facilities Which Mav Emit Hazardous Air Emissions Near Schools. No Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration shall be approved for any project involving the construction or alteration of a facility within one-fourth of a mile of a school which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely hazardous air emissions as defined below or which would handle acutely hazardous material or a mixture containing acutely hazardous material in a quantity equal to or greater than that specified in RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -73_ 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report Health and Safety Code Section 25536(a), which may impose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school unless both of the following occur: (a) The Commission, as bead Agency, in preparing the Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration has consulted with the school district or districts having jurisdiction over the school regarding the potential impact of the project on the school when circulating the proposed Negative Declaration or Draft EIR for review; and (b) The school district has been given written notification of the project not less than thirty (30) days prior to the proposed approval or certification of the Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. (c) Definitions: (1) "Hazardous air emissions" means any substance released into the air which is on the list prepared pursuant to Section 25532(a) and Section 44321 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) "Acutely hazardous air emissions" means any substance released into the air defined by Section 25532(a) of the Health and Safety Code. 7.30 Statement of Overriding Considerations. Whenever a project approved by the decision making body will cause unmitigated significant environmental effects, the decision making body must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Statement of Overriding Considerations allows the decision making body to approve a project despite one or more unmitigated significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations can be made only if feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures do not exist to reduce the environmental impact(s) to a level of insignificance and the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse environmental effect(s). The feasibility of project alternatives or mitigation measures is determined by whether the project alternative or mitigation measure can be accomplished within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors. Project benefits RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -74- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report which are appropriate to consider include the economic, environmental, technological and social value of the project. Substantial evidence in the entire record must justify the decision making body's findings and its use of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. If the decision making body makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement must be included in the record of the project approval and mentioned in the Notice of Determination. 7.31 Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Program for EIR. When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Guidelines Section 7.28, the Commission must do all of the following: (a) adopt a reporting or monitoring program to assure that mitigation measures which are required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment will be implemented by the project proponent or other responsible party in a timely manner, in accordance with conditions of project approval; (b) make sure all conditions and mitigation measures are feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Such permit conditions, agreements, and measures must be consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by the case; and (c) specify the location and the custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Commission based its decision in the resolution certifying the EIR There is no requiremem that the reporting or monitoring program be circulated for public review; however, the Commission may choose to circulate it for public comments along with the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment must be adopted as conditions of project approval. The adequacy of a mitigation monitoring program is determined by the "rule of reason." This means that a mitigation monitoring program does not need to provide every imaginable measure. It needs only to provide measures that are reasonably feasible. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -75- 61999 Bat Best & Dieser LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the, ]input Report California Environmental Quality Act (1999) This reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to assure compliance during the implementation or construction of a project. If a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency has required that certain conditions be incorporated into the project, the Commission may request that agency to prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The Commission shall also require that prior to the close of the public review period for a Draft EIR (see Guidelines "Section 7.21), the Responsible or Trustee Agency submit detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures, or refer the Commission to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to the Commission by a Responsible or Trustee Agency shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are within the Responsible or Trustee Agency's authority. Transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program required to be adopted by the Commission shall be submitted to the regional transportation planning agency where the project is located if the project impacts have statewide, regional or area - wide significance according to criteria developed pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083. The transportation planning agency_ is required by law to adopt guidelines for the submittal of these reporting or monitoring programs, so the Commission may wish to tailor its submittal to such guidelines. Local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for this program. Therefore, the Commission will charge the project proponent a fee to cover actual costs of program processing and implementation. The Commission may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to an agency or to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed, the Commission remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program. The Commission may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. "Reporting"is defined as a written compliance review that is presented to the Council or an authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. Reporting is suited to projects which have readily measurable or quantitative mitigation measures or which RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -76- 61999 Hest Bat do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report already involve regular review. "Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. Monitoring is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures which may exceed the expertise of the Commission to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require careful implementation to assure compliance. At its discretion, the Commission may adopt standardized policies and requirements to guide individually adopted programs. Standardized policies or requirements for monitoring and reporting may describe, but are not limited to: (a) The relative responsibilities of various departments within the Commission for various aspects of the program. (b) The responsibilities of the project proponent. (c) Guidelines adopted by the Commission to govern preparation of programs. (d) General standards for determining project compliance with the mitigation measures and related conditions of approval. (e) Enforcement procedures for noncompliance, including provisions for administrative appeal. (f) Process for informing the Council and staff of the relative success of mitigation measures and using those results to improve future mitigation measures. When a project is of statewide, regional, or areawide importance, any transportation information generated by a program must be submitted to the transportation planning agency in the region where the project is located. 7.32 Notice of Determination. Following consideration and approval of project for which the Commission is the Lead Agency, the decision making body shall order 'Sta rto prepare, certify and file, a Notice of Determination (Form "F") which shall contain the following: (a) An identification of the project by its common name where possible and its location. (b) A brief description of the project. (c) The date when the Commission approved the project. (d) Whether the project in its approved form will have a significant effect on the environment. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -77- 411999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report (e) A statement that an EIR was prepared and certified pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. (f) Whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. (g) Whether findings and/or a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project. (h) The address where a copy of the EIR (with comments and responses) and the record of project approval may be examined by the general public. The Notice of Detennination shall then be filed, within five working days of the action, with the Clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The Clerk must post the Notice of Determination within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for a minimum of thirty (30) days. Simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Clerk, Staff shall cause a copy of such Notice to be posted at the Commission office. If the project requires discretionary approval from a state agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with the Office of Planning and Research. The filing and posting by the Clerk of the Notice of Determination usually starts a thirty (30) day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. If a Notice of Determination is not filed, a one hundred eighty (180) day statute of limitations will apply. When a request has been made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the Commission certifies the Final EIR, such Notice must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the Commission's determination. If such a request is made following the Commission's determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. 7.33 Disposition of a Final EIR. The Commission shall file a copy of the Final EIR with the appropriate planning agency of any city or county where significant effects on the environment may occur. The Commission shall also retain one or more copies of the Final EIR as a public record for a reasonable period of time. Finally, for private projects, the Commission may require that the project applicant provide a copy of the certified Final EIR to each Responsible Agency. _RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -78- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) • Environmental lmjact Report 7.34 Private Project Costs. For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall be charged a reasonable fee to recover the estimated costs incurred by the Commission in preparing, circulating, and filing the Draft and Final EIRs, as well as all publication costs incident thereto. 7.35 Filing Fees for Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources. At the time a Notice of Determination for an EIR is filed with the Clerk, a fee of S850 shall be paid to the Clerk for projects which will adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. These fees are collected by the Clerk on behalf of the California Department of Fish and Game ("DFG"). Only one filing fee is required for each project unless the project is tiered or phased and separate environmental documents are prepared. For projects where a Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies file separate Notices of Determination, only the Lead Agency is required to pay the fee. Note: The Clerk customarily charges a documentary handling fee for each project in addition to the filing fee specified above. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to help determine the correct amount. For private projects, the Commission shall pass these costs on to the project applicant. No fees are required for projects with a "de minimis" effect on fish and wildlife resources, or for certain projects undertaken by the DFG and implemented through a contract with anon -profit entity or local government agency. A project with a "de minimis" effect has no potential for adverse effect on fish and wildlife. This is an important exception. DFG considers the following projects as likely to have "de minimis" effects on fish and wildlife, depending on the specific facts of each project: (1) . Projects which enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats and result in no accompanying adverse impacts to fish or wildlife; (2) Lot line adjustments; (3) Building remodeling; (4) Annexations; (5) Redevelopment on existing urban subdivisions with no wildlife habitat; (6) Infill of undeveloped lots; RCTClRVPUB/313897 -79- 01999 Best Best do Krieger LLP ' Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Qualm+ Act (1999) Environmental Impact Report (7) Adoption of a General Plan, where CEQA requires a subsequent discretionary project approval before any physical change to natural habitat is permitted. If the Commission believes that a project will have a "de minimis" effect on wildlife resources, it should file the Certificate of Fee Exemption attached as Form "L". This form requires the Commission to set forth facts in support of the fee exemption. These facts should include: (1) the name and address of the project proponent; (2) a brief description of the project and its location; (3) a statement that an initial study has been prepared by the Commission to evaluate the project's effects on wildlife resources, if any; (4) a declaration that there is no evidence before the Commission that the project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources; and (5) a declaration that the Commission has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in the regulations. A presumption of adverse effect occurs if the project has the potential for adverse effects on the fish and wildlife resources listed on Form "L". To rebut the presumption of adverse effect, the Commission should explain in the declaration why the project would not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife and reference any supporting evidence. These findings should be made at the time of approval of the EIR and attached to Form "L" when submitted to the County. Two copies of Form "L" must be filed with a Notice of Determination in order to obtain the fee exemption. If the Commission believes that a project has been undertaken by the DFG, that the project's costs are payable from one or more of the sources indicated in the Fish and Game Code, and that the project is being implemented through a contract with a non-profit entity or a local government agency, the DFG filing does not apply. Since the DFG has not yet adopted regulations to govern this exemption, including a new "Certificate of Fee Exemption," the Commission may wish to use Form L and make appropriate modifications to reflect this exemption. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -80- 4'1999 Best Hest & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types of EIRS 8. TYPES OF EIRS 8.01 Project EIR. The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project and focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. This chapter describes a number of examples of various EIRs tailored to different situations. All EIRs must meet the content requirements summarized in Guidelines Section 7.12. 8.02 Subsequent EIR. A Subsequent EIR is required when a previous EIR has been prepared and certified or a Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project and at least one of the three following situations occur: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of a previous EIR due to the identification of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken which will require major revisions of a previous.EIR due to the identification of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, becomes available and shows any of the following: (1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration, (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in a previous EIR, (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible are in fact feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives, or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives which were not considered in a previous EIR would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -81- *1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types ofE1RS A Subsequent EIR must receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR received. In instances where the Commission is evaluating a modification or revision to an existing use permit, the Commission may consider only those environmental impacts related to the changes between what was allowed under the old permit and what is requested under the new permit. Only if these differential impacts fall within the categories described above may the Commission require additional environmental review. When the Commission is considering approval of a development project which is consistent with a general plan for which an EIR was completed, another EIR is required only if the project causes environmental effects peculiar to the parcel which were not addressed in the prior EIR, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior EIR. 8.03 Supplement to an EIR. The Commission as a Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a Supplement to an EIR, rather than a Subsequent EIR, if any of the conditions described in Guidelines Section 8.02 would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. To assist the Commission in making this determination, the decision making body should request an Initial Study and/or a recommendation by Staff. The Supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A Supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a Draft EIR, but may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous EIR. When the decision making body decides whether to approve the project, it shall consi- der the previous EIR. as revised by the supplement. Findings pursuant to Guidelines Section 7.28 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous MR as supplemented. 8.04 Addendum to an EIR. The Commission as a Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare an Addendum to an EIR, rather than a Supplement to an EIR, only if none of the conditions described in Guidelines Section 8.02 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred and minor technical changes or additions are necessary. Since significant RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _82- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types of E1RS effects on the environment were addressed by findings in the original EIR, no new findings are required in the addendum. An Addendum to an E1R need not be recirculated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on a project. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR should be included in the addendum, the EIR findings or elsewhere in the record. This explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. 8.05 Tiered EIR. "Tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a previously certified broader EIR in later EIRs or Negative Declarations prepared for narrower projects. The later EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR and may concentrate solely on the issues specific to the later project. An Initial Study shall be prepared for the later project and used to determine whether a Tiered EIR may be used and whether new significant effects should be examined. A Tiered EIR shall be used for later projects where a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance and the Commission determines that: (a) The later project is consistent with a program, plan, policy or ordinance for which an EIR has been prepared and certified; (b) The later project is consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning of the city and county in which the later project would be located; and (c) The later project would not require a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. (See Guidelines Sections 8.02 and 8.03.) Tiering does not excuse the Commission from adequately analyzing reasonable foreseeable significant environmental effects of a project, and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or Negative Declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed. In addition, where the Commission is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site -specific information RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -83- 4'1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types of EIRS may not be feasible. Such site -specific information can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the Commission prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. Where a first tier EIR has beenprepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, the Commission should limit the EIR or Negative Declaration on the later project to effects which: (a) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior E1R; or (b) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project by the imposition of conditions or other means. Where the Commission determines that a cumulative effect had been adequately addressed in the prior EIR, that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of the later E1R or Negative Declaration and need not be discussed in detail. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Commission shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past present, and probable future projects. This issue is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. Significant environmental effects have been "adequately addressed" if the Conunission determines that: (a) They have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior EIR and findings were adopted in connection with that prior environmental report; (b) They have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior E1R to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project; or (c) They cannot bemitigated to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts despite the project proponent's willingness to accept all feasible mitigation measures, and the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another EIR would be to put the agency in a position to adopt a statement of overriding considerations with respect to the effects. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 01999 Best Hest & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types of EIRS 8.06 Staged EIR. Where a large capital project will require _a number of discretionary approvals from governmental agencies and one of the approvals will occur more than two years before construction will begin, a Staged EIR may be prepared covering the entire project in a general form or manner. A Staged EIR should evaluate a proposal in light of current and contemplated plans and produce an informed estimate of the environmental consequences of an entire project. The particular aspect of the project before the Commission for approval shall be discussed with a greater degree of specificity. Where a Staged EIR has been prepared, a Supplement to that EIR shall be prepared when a later approval is required for the project, and the information available at the time of the later approval would permit consideration of additional environmental impacts, mitigation measures, or reasonable alternatives to the project. 8.07 Program EIR. A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on an integrated series of actions that are related either: (a) Geographically; (b) As logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions; (c) In connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other generalcriteriato govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (d) As individual projects carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined iii the light of the program EIR to determine whether additional environmental documents must be prepared. Additional environmental review documents must be prepared if the proposed later project may arguably cause significant adverse effects on the environment. 8.08 Use of a Program EIR With Subsequent Ms and Negative Declarations. A program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later parts of the program. The Program EIR can: (a) Provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant effects. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -85- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types of FIRS (b) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives and other factors that apply to the program as a whole. (c) Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects which had not been considered before. 8.09 Use of an EIR from an Earlier Proiect. A single EIR may be utilized to describe more than one project when the projects involve substantially identical environmental impacts. Any environmental impacts peculiar to one of the projects must be separately set forth and explained. 8.10 Master EIR. A Master E1R is an EIR which may be prepared for: (a) A general plan (including elements and amendments); (b) A specific plan; (c) A project consisting of smaller individual projects to be phased; (d) A regulation to be implemented by subsequent projects; (e) A project to be carried out pursuant to a development agreement; (f) A project pursuant to or furthering a redevelopment plan; (g) A state highway or mass transit project subject to multiple reviews or approvals; or (h) A regional transportation plan or congestion management plan. A Master OR must do both of the following: (a) Describe and present sufficient information about anticipated subsequent projects within its scope, including their size, location, intensity, and scheduling; and (b) Preliminarily describe potential impacts of anticipated subsequent projects for which insufficient information is available to support a full impact assessment. The Commission and Responsible Agencies identified in the Master EIR may use the Master EIR to limit environmental review of subsequent projects. However, the subsequent project Lead Agency must prepare an Initial Study to determine whether the subsequent project and its significant environmental effects were included in the Master EIR. If the subsequent project Lead Agency finds that the subsequent project will have no additional significant environmental effect and that no new mitigation measures or alternatives may be RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -86- °1999 Best Best k Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types of E1RS required, it may prepare written findings to that effect without preparing a new environmental document or finding. If the subsequent project Lead Agency cannot make these findings, it must prepare either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR for the subsequent project. The Master EIR cannot be,used to limit review of a subsequent project if it was certified more than five (5) years before the filing of an application for the subsequent project, or if the approval of a project that was not described in the Master EIR may affect the adequacy of the environmental review in the Master EIR for any subsequent project. However, the five (5) year limitation does not apply if the Commission finds that no substantial changes or information related to the Master EIR exist, or if it certifies a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR that makes appropriate modification to the Master EIR. The Commission as Lead Agency must provide Notice of Completion and availability of a Master EIR within a period of time prior to final adoption by the public agency, as described in Guidelines Section 7.17. The Commission may develop a fee program to fund the costs of a Master EIR. 8.11 Focused EIR. A Focused EIR is an EIR for a subsequent project identified in a Master EIR. It may be used only if the Commission finds that the Master EIR's analysis of cumulative, growth -inducing, and irreversible significant environmental effects is adequate for the subsequent project. The Focused EIR must incorporate by reference the Master EIR. The Focused EIR must analyze additional significam environmental effects not addressed in the Master EIR and any new mitigation measures .or alternatives not included in the Master EIR. "Additional significant effects on the environment" means those project - specific effects on the environment which were not addressed as significant effects on the environment in the Master OR. The Focused EIR must also examine the following: (a) Significant effects discussed in the Master EIR for which substantial new information exists that shows those effects may be more significant than described in the Master EIR; RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -87- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Types of EMS (b) Those mitigation measures found to be infeasible in the Master EIR for which substantial new information exists that shows those effects may be more significant than described in the Master EIR; and (c) Those mitigation measures found to be infeasible in the Master EIR for which substantial new information exists that shows those measures may now be feasible. The Focused EIR need not examine the following effects: (d) Those that were mitigated through Master E1R mitigation measures; and (e ) Those that were examined in the Master E1R in sufficient detail to allow project - specific mitigation or for which mitigation was found to be the responsibility of another agency. A Focused EIR may be prepared for a multifamily residential project not exceeding 100 units or a mixed use residential project not exceeding 100,000 square feet even though the project was not identified in a Master EIR, if the following conditions are met: (a) The project is consistent with a general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance for which an EIR was prepared within five (5) years of the Focused EIR's certification; (b) The project does not require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR pursuant to Guidelines Sections 8.02 or 8.03; and (c) The parcel is bordered by urban development, previously developed by urban uses, or within one-half mile of a rail transit station. A Focused EIR for these projects should be limited to site -specific significant effects and significant effects that substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the Master E1R. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -88- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions 9. DEFINITIONS Whenever the following terms are used in these Guidelines, they shall have the following meaning unless otherwise expressly defined: 9.01 "Applicant" means a person who proposes to carry out a project which requires a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use, or requires financial aid from one or more public agencies when applying for governmental approval or assistance. 9.02 "Approval" means a decision by the decision making body or other authorized body or officer of the Commission which commits the Commission to a definite course of action with regard to a particular project. With regard to any project to be undertaken directly by the Commission, approval shall be deemed to occur on the date when the decision making body adopts a motion or resolution determining to proceed with the project, which in no event shall be later than the date of adoption of plans and specifications. As to private projects, approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the earliest commitment to provide service or the issu- ance by the Commission of a discretionary contract, subsidy, or other formof financial assis- tance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project. The mere acquisition of land by the Commission shall not, in and of itself, be deemed to constitute approval of a project. For purposes of these Guidelines, all environmental documents must be completed as of the time of project approval. 9.03 "CEOA" (the California Environmental Quality Act) means California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. 9.04 "Categorical Exemption" means an exception from the requirement of preparing a Negative Declaration or an EIR, based on a finding by the Secretary for Resources that the class of projects does not have a significant effect on the environment. 9.05 "Clerk" means either the "Clerk of the Board" or the "County Clerk" depending upon the county. Please refer to the "Index to Environmental Filing by County" in the Staff Summary to determine which applies. 9.06 "Commission" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -89- .1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Defmitions 9.07 "Cumulative Impacts" means two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate pro- jects, whether past, present or future. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. 9.08 "Cumulatively Considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of "probable future projects". (See Guidelines Section 9.34.) 9.09 "Decision Making Body" means the body within the Commission ( i.e., Board of Directors) with final approval authority over the particular project. (See Guidelines Section 9.02.) 9.10 "Development Project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development, including any project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction but not a permit to operate. It does not include any ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. (Government Code Section. 65928.) 9.11 "Discretionary Project" means a project for which approval requires the exercise of independent judgment, deliberation, or decision -making on the part of the Commission. 9.12 "Draft EIR" means an Ea containing the information summarized in Guidelines Section 7.12. 9.13 "Emergency" means a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health, property, or essential public services. Emergency includes such occurrences as fire, flood, earthquake, landslide or other natural disaster, as well as such occurrences as riot, war, accident or sabotage. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions 9.14 "Environment" means the physical conditions which exist in the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. 9.15 "EIR" (Environmental Impact Report) means a detailed written statement setting forth the environmental effects and considerations pertaining to a project and may mean either a Draft or a Final version of a typical EIR, a Project EIR, a Subsequent EII, a Supplemental EIR, a Tiered EIR, a Staged EIR, a Program EIR, a Master EII, or a Focused EIR. 9.16 "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors. 9.17 "Final E1R" means an EIR containing the information contained in the Draft E1R, comments either verbatim or in summary received in the review process, a list of persons commenting, and the response of the Commission to the comments received. 9.18 "Historical Resources" shall be determined according to the following: (a) Resources listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources shall be considered historical resources. (b) Resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(k), or identified as significant in an historical resource survey, as specified in Public Resources Code Section.5024.1(g), are presumed to be historically or culturally significant, unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that they are not historically or culturally significant. (c) Any of the following may be considered historically significant: any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a Lead Agency determines, based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record, to be historically significant or. significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California. (d) Any resource shall be considered by the Lead Agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register oflEstorical Resources. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -91- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions (See Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and 14 California Code of Regulations Section 4852.) (e) The Lead Agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is an historical resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1, even if it is: (a) not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (b) not included in a local register of historical resources; or (c) not identified in an historical resources survey. 9.19 "Initial Study" means a preliminary analysis conducted by the Commission to determine whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration must be prepared or to identify the significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR. 9.20 "Jurisdiction by Law" means the authority of any public agency to grant a permit or other entitlement for use, to provide funding for the project in question or to exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project. The Commission will have jurisdiction by law over a project when the Commission, having primary and exclusive jurisdiction over the area involved, is the site of the project, the area in which the major environmental effects will occur, or the area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental effects. 9.21 "Land Disposal Facility" means a hazardous waste facility where hazardous waste is disposed in, on, or under land. (Health & Safety Code Section 25199.1(d).) 9.22 "Large Treatment Facility" means a treatment facility which treats or recycles one thousand (1,000) or more tons of hazardous waste during any one month of the current reporting period commencing on or after July 1, 1991. (Health & Safety Code Section 25205.1(d).) 9.23 "Lead Agency" means the public agency which has the principal responsibility for preparing environmental documents and for carrying out or approving a project, which may have significant effects on the environment, where more than one public agency is involved with the same underlying activity. 9.24 "Mitigated Negative Declaration" means a Negative Declaration prepared for a Project when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but RCTC/RVPUB/313897 _92_ °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial Evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. 9.25 "Mitigation" means avoiding the environmental impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the impacted environment, reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action, or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 9.26 "Negative Declaration" means a written statement by the Commission briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an EIR. 9.27 "Notice of Completion" means a brief report filed with the Office of Planning and Research by the Commission when it is the Lead Agency as soon as it has completed a Draft EIR and is prepared to send out copies for review. 9.28 "Notice of Determination" means a brief notice to be filed by the Commission when it approves or determines to carry out a project which is subject to the requirements of CEQA. 9.29 "Notice of Exemption" means a brief notice which may be filed by the Commission when it has approved or determined to carry out a project, and it has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Such a notice may also be filed by an applicant where such a determination has been made by a public agency which must approve the project. 9.30 "Notice of Preparation" means a brief notice sent by a Lead Agency to notify the Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that the Lead Agency plans to prepare an EIR for a project. The purpose of this notice is to solicit guidance from such agencies as to the scope and contentof the environmental information to be included in the EIR. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -93- °1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions 9.31 "Offsite Facility" means a facility that serves more than one generator of hazardous waste. (Public Resources Code Section 21151.1(13)(g).) 9.32 "Person" includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, company, city, county, city and county, city, town, the state, and any of the agencies which may be political subdivisions of such entities. 9.33 "Private Project" means a project which will be carried out by a person other than a governmental agency, but which will need a discretionary approval from the Commission. Private projects will normally be those listed in subsections (b) and (c) of Guidelines Section 9.35. 9.34 'Probable Future Projects" means that, when evaluating cumulative impacts, those projects requiring an agency approval for an application which has been received at the time the Notice of Preparation is released; projects included in an adopted capital improvements program, general plan, regional transportation plan, or other similar plan; projects included in a summary of projections of projects in a general plan or a similar plan; projects anticipated as later phase of a previously approved.project; or those public agency projects for which money has been budgeted. (See Guidelines Section 7.12(j).) 9.35 "Project" means the whole of an action or activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment, and is any of the following: (a) A discretionary activity directly undertaken by the Commission including but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, or improvements to existing public structures. (b) A discretionary activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, or which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance by the Commission. (c) A discretionary project proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including but not limited to the enactment and amendment of local General Plans or RCTC/RVPUB/313897 1)1999 Best Best do Krieger L.L.P Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Defmitions elements thereof, the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of Zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps. The presence of any real degree of control over the manner in which a project is completed makes it a discretionary project. The term project refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term project does not mean each separate governmental approval. 9.36 "Responsible Agency" means a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project for which a Lead Agency has prepared the environmental documents. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all federal, state, regional and local public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project. 9.3 7 "Significant Effect" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the activity including land, air, water, Minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. 9.3 8 "Staff' means the Executive Director or his or her designee. 9.3 9 "Standard" means a standard of general application that is all of the following: (a) A quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in a statute, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or other standard of general application; (b) Adopted for the purpose of environmental protection; (c) Adopted by a public agency through a public review process; (d) Governs the same environmental effect which the change in the environment is impacting; and (e) Governs the jurisdiction where the project is located. The definition of "standard" includes thresholds of significance adopted by the Commission which meet the requirements of this section. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -95- 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions If there is a conflict between standards, the Commission shall determine which standard is appropriate based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. 9.40 "State Guidelines" means the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Secretary of the California Resources Agency as they now exist or hereafter may be amended. (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.) 9.41 "Substantial Evidence" means reliable infornation on which a fair argumem can be based to support an inference or conclusion, even though another conclusion could be drawn from that information. "Substantial evidence" includes facts, fact -related reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported 'by facts. "Substantial evidence" does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. 9.42 "Tierin " means the coverage of general matters in broad scope or Program EIRs, with subsequent narrower environmental documents (such as site -specific EIRs) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the envi- ronmental document subsequently prepared. 9.43 "Transportation Facilities" means major local arterials and public transit within five miles of the project site, and freeways, highways, and rail transit service within ten miles of the project site. 9.44 "Trustee Agency" means a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Trustee Agencies include but are not limited to: (a) The California Department of Fish and Game with regard to the fish and wildlife of the state. (b) The State Lands Commission with regard to state owned "sovereign" lands. (c) The State Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units of the State Park System. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 01999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Definitions (d) The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserve System. (e) The State Water Resources Control Board with respect to surface waters. 9.45 "Zoning Approval" means any enactment, amendment, or appeal of a zoning ordinance; granting of a conditional use permit or variance; or any other form of land use, subdivision, tract, or development approval required from the city or county having jurisdiction to permit the particular use of the property. RCTC/RVPUB/313897 -97- *1999 Best Best & Krieger LLP Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (1999) Forms 10. FORMS RCTC/RVP'UB/313897 -98- °1999 Best Best do Krieger LL.P PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: 2. Location: 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name: (2) Address: 4. Staff Determination: The Commission's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the Commission's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: Date: a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. The project is a Ministerial Project. c. The project is an Emergency. Project. d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: f. The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: g. The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Staff RCTC/ 199/R V PUB/312822 FORM "A" NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: or County Clerk County of: 1. Project Title: 2. Project Location - Specific: 3. (a) Project Location - City: (b) Project Location - County: 4. Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries of Project: 5. Name of Public Agency approving project: 6. Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: 7. Exempt status: (Check one) (a) Ministerial project. (b) Not a project. (c) Emergency Project. (d) Categorical Exemption. State type and class number: (e) Declared Emergency. (f) Statutory Exemption. State Code section number: (8) Other. Explanation: 8. Reason why project was exempt: 9. Contact Person: Telephone: 10. Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A") before filing. Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Signature (Lead Agency Representative) Title RCTC/ 1999/R VPUB/313749 FORM "B" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY) 1. Name or description of project: 2. Location: 3. Entity or Person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name: (2) Address: 4. Staff Determination: The Commission's staff, having undertaken and completed an Initial Study of this project in accordance with the Commission's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA)" for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, has reached the following conclusion: (a) The project could not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration should be adopted. (b) The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects, or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be adopted. (c) The project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Report will be required. Date: Staff RCTC/1999/RVPUB/313831 FORM "C" NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given that has completed an Initial Study of the project in accordance with the Commission's Guidelines imple- menting the California Environmental Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the Commission's Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. The Project site is is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative. Declaration are on file at the Commission's offices, and are available for public review. Comments will be received until . Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the Commission prior to this date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested. At its meeting on at , the Board of Directors will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the Board of Directors finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This means that the Board of Directors may proceed to consider the project without the prepar- ation of an Environmental Impact Report. Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Staff Title RCTC/1999/RVP1UB/312819 FORM "D" NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Name, if any, and a brief description of project: 2. Location: 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name: (2) Address: The Board of Directors, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the Board of Directors, including the recommendation of the Commission's Staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the Board of Directors' findings are as follows: The Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: Phone No.: The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Commission based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: Phone No.: Staff Date Received for Filing RCTC/I999/RVPUB/313745 FORM "E" NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: or County Clerk County of: Office of Planning and Research (If the project requires state approval) 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project 'Title State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person Telephone Number Project Location (Include County) Project Description This is to certify that the (Lead Agency or Responsible Agency) approved the above described project on and made the following determinations: 1. The project will will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. 3. Mitigation measures _ were _ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations — was _ was not adopted for this project. 5. Findings — were _ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 6. The location and custodian of the documents which comprise the record of proceedings for the Final EIR (with comments and responses) or Negative Declaration are specified as follows: Custodian: Location: Date Signature Date Received for Filing Title ROTC/ 1999/R VPUB/313828 FORM "F" NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: FROM: (Responsible Agency or Tiusme Agency) (Address) SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of, a Draft Environmental Impact Report. The will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The Project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study — is _ is not attached. Your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION (brief): PROJECT APPLICANT, IF ANY: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAZARDOUS WASTE LIST (if applicable): Date: Signature Title Telephone Consulting firm retained to prepare draft EIR (if applicable): Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Contact Person: RC TC / 1999/R V PUB /312817 FORM "G" NOTICE OF COMPLETION Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916)445-0613 PROJECT TITLE LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON STREET ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE CITY ZIP CODE CITY ZIP CODE COUNTY PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY CITY/NEAREST COMMUNITY CROSS STREETS TOTAL ACRES ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE BASE WITHIN 2 MILES: STATE HIGHWAY NO. WATERWAYS AIRPORTS RAILWAYS SCHOOLS DOCUMENT TYPE CEQA: _ NOP _ Early Cons _ Neg Dec Draft EIR LOCAL ACTION TYPE _ General Plan Update General Plan Amendment General Plan Element _ Community Plan Specific Plan _ Master Plan Planned Unit Development Site Plan DEVELOPMENT TYPE _ Residential: Units Acres_ _ Office: Sq.ft. Acres _ Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres _ Industrial: Sq.h. Acres Educational _ Institutional Recreational _ Supplement/Subsequent EIR IPrior SCH No.) Other Master EIR _ Focused EIR _ Rezone _ Prezone _ Use P.m* Land Division • _ Annexation _ Redevelopment Coastal Permit Other ' •!Subdivision, Parcel MaR, Tract Map, etc.! _ Water Facilities: Type MGD Employees _ Transportation: Type Employees _ Mining: Mineral Employees Power: Type Watts PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT _ AestheticNisual _ Agricuttural Land Air Quality Archeological/Historical _ Coastal Zone _ Drainage/Absorption _ Economic/Jobs _ Fiscal Flood Plain/Flooding Forest Land/Fire Hazard _ Geologic/Seismic Waste Treatment: Type Hazardous Waste: Type Ocher: _ Health Hazards _ Minerals _ Noise _ Population/Housing Balance _ Public Services/Facilities _ Recreation/Parks _ Schools/Universities _ Septic Systems _ Sewer Capacity _ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading _ Solid Waste _ Toxic/Hazardous _ Traffic/Circulation _ Vegetation _ Water Quality _ Water.Supply/Groundwater _ Wetland/Riparian _ Wildlife _ Growth Inducing _ Land Use _ Cumulative Effects _ Other PRESENT LAND USE/ZONING/GENERAL PLAN USE PROJECT DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC RCTC/1999/RVPUB/313742 FORM "H", ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed by private project applicant to assist staff in completing initial study) Date Filed: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: 2. Address of project: Assessor's Block and Lot Number: 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains. 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 6. Existing zoning district: 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. 9. Square footage. 10. Number of floors of construction. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach plans. 13. Proposed scheduling. 14. Associated projects. 15. Anticipated incremental development. 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sales prices or RCTC/1999/R VPUB/313525 Page 1 of 3 FORM "I" rents and type of household size expected. 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities. 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes, hills or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. . 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). RCTC/1999/RVPUB/313825 Page 2 of 3 FORM "I" Yes No 31. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) . 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this project? 34. If you answered yes to question 33, may this project cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 35. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and anitnals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photo- graphs of the site. (Snapshots or instant photos acceptable.) 36. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. (Snapshots or instant photos acceptable.) CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the- data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATE: (Signature) For RCTC/1999/RVPUB/313825 Page 3 of 3 FORM "I" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action.involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) • 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 FORM "T Page 1 of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards &Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are Unposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Printed Name Date For RCTC/RVPUB/1999/31281 S FORM "T' Page 2 of 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if.the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 FORM "T' Page 3 of 14 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. SAMPLE QUESTION Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact RCTC/RVPUB/ 1999/31281 S Page 4 of 14 FORM " J" Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ due to their location or nature, could resuh in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air .quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 FORM "r Page 5 of 14 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Impact incorporated Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a . historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 FORM “r Page 6 of 14 Issues: VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based 'on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 FORM "P' Page 7of14 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpac Impact Incorporated Impact a) Create a significant ba7ard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project resuh in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or • working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation per? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlaad fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences arc intermixed with wildlands? RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 FORM "T' Page 8 of 14 Issues: VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would resuh in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stone water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpac Impact Incorporated Impact RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 FORM " P' Page 9 of 14 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established con mtmity? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) . Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbore noise levels? RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 FORM "T' Page 10 of 14 Issues: c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: RCTC/RVPUB/1999/31281 S Page 11 of 14 Issues: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant Potentially With Las Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact CI ❑ ❑ ❑ RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 FORM "T' Page 12 of 14 Issues: b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or resuh in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or resuh in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ RCTURVPUB/1999/312815 FORM "T' Page 13 of 14 Issues: Las Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impac Impact Incorporated Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? O ❑ ❑ RCTC/RVPUB/1999/312815 Page 14 of 14 FORM " r TO: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Project Title Project Location - Specific Project Location - City Project Location - County Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: The Significant Effects on the Environment if any, Anticipated as a Result of the Project: Lead Agency Division Date when project noticed to public: Address where copy of the EIR and all documents referenced in the EIR are available: Review Period Date, Time and Location of Public Hearing, if any: Contact Person Area Code - Telephone - Extension [To be published, posted or mailed to contiguous owners/occupants, and sent to the last known name and address of organizations and individuals who have previously requested it.] RCTC/1999/RVPUB/313739 FORM "K" CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (include county): Name and Address of Project Applicant: Project Description: Findings of Exemption: 1. An Initial Study has been prepared by the Lead Agency to evaluate the project's effects on wildlife resources, if any. 2. The Lead Agency hereby finds that there is no evidence before the Commission that the project will have any potential for adverse effect on the environment 3. The project *will will not result in any changes to the following resources: (A) Riparian land, rivers, streams, watercourses and wetlands; (B) Native and non-native plant life and the soil required to sustain habitat for fish and wildlife; (C) Rare and unique plant life and ecological communities dependant on plant life; (D) Listed threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitat in which they are believed to reside; (E) All species listed as protected or identified for special management in the Fish and Game Code, the Public Resources Code, the Water Code or regulations adopted thereunder; (F) All marine and terrestrial species subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game and the ecological communities in which they reside; and (G) All air and water resources, the degradation of which will individually or cumulatively result in a loss of biological diversity among the plants and animals residing in that air and water. 3 * If the project will result in changes to any of these resources, the Commission has, on the basis of substantial evidence, 'rebutted" the presumption of adverse effect to these resources. A statement in support of this rebuttal is attached. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the Lead Agency has made the above finding(s) of fact and based upon the Initial Study and the hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Lead Agency Representative Title: Lead Agency: Date: RCTC/1999/RVPUB/312812 FORM "L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amend RCTC Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Set Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Overall Annual Goal for Federally Funded Projects The Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program was first adopted in 1992, and was amended in September 14, 1994. Since then, there were changes in the Federal Rules and Regulations at CFR Parts 23 and 26 warranting amendment of the Commission's Program. The program applies only to federally -funded projects. The purpose of the program is to ensure equal opportunity in transportation contracting markets, address the effects of discrimination in transportation contracting, and promote increased participation in federally funded contracts by small, socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, including minority and women owned enterprises. The statute establishes a national aspirational goal of at least 10% of the amounts made available for any federal -aid highways, mass transit, and transportation research and technology program to be expended with certified DBEs. DBEs must be certified by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or any federal funding recipients in order to be included in the count of DBEs. The Commission must set its DBE goal and submit it to Caltrans by September 1. The goal is submitted to Caltrans as federal funds for the Commission flows through Caltrans. An agency must set its annual overall DBE goal in accordance to procedures under federal regulations 49 CFR Section 26. The agency, to the maximum extent feasible, must make every effort to meet its goal through race -neutral measures. Only in those instances where race neutral measures are inadequate to meet the agency's overall goal may the agency establish specific contract goals, including goals, for particular projects through subcontracting opportunities. The process by which the DBE goal is established is as follows: 1) Determine the amount of federal funds that the agency will receive in the fiscal year; 2) Establish the base figure of DBEs as a percentage of all contractors, subcontractors, manufacturers and suppliers in relevant market areas; 3) Adjust the base figure based on availability of DBEs. For FY 1999-2000, the Commission is projected to receive and award a total of $7,496,000 ($5,741,000 construction and $1,755,000 professional services) in federal funds. Federal funds will be used for the following projects: 1) Santa Fe Depot restoration; 2) Pedley Metrolink Station surveillance and platform; 3) La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Station overcrossings; 4) San Jacinto Branch Line engineering; and, 5) Miscellaneous Professional Services, i.e., Valley Research Planning Associates and Geographics - CMP Based on the amount federal funds projected to be received and awarded, and the based figure for DBEs, the proposed overall annual goal for RCTC for FY 1999-2000 is 11.6%. Public agencies such as Caltrans, City and County of Riverside, and a number of surrounding public agencies has set their annual DBE goal at 10% for federal funded projects. To comply with regulations, staff has published the proposed annual goal in the newspapers and that public comments on the Commission's goal and methodology used to set the goal will be accepted for a period of 45 days, from the date of publication. If there are any comments received, staff will present them to the Commission in September. The Plans and Programs Committee has reviewed the draft Program and discussed the process followed to come up with proposed annual goal of 11.6%, and they recommend Commission approval. PLANS AND PROGRAM COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Adopt the amended RCTC Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program; 2) Set RCTC's overall DBE goal at 11.6%; and, 3) Authorize staff to submit its adopted plan and goal to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). NK Attachments: 1 - Amended RCTC Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program 2 - Overall Annual Goal Report ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION f SION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS E1RPRI .RAM RVPUBWFW1517541 6/22/99 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM 1. POLICY A. Policy Statement The Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"'isadttaged Business Enterprise Program ("Program") is based on the provisions o€;UMT Iiiikt 4716.1A and the Federal Rules and Regulations at 49 CFR part 23 and 26 :a'endei "'"dram represent§.:;,a continuing effort on the part ofRCTC to integrate Disadva�€t;�ged Busing3WifiA€,("DBEs"):sfo the procurement mainstream. This program is intendedg contributg leasur8,:;. ;' ?lr d . BE goals stated below and as set forth in applicable federallatip.6" A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy Statertachment F) was originally sub- mitted to and approved by the RCTC Board of Directors 'jber 12, 1992. This Policy Statement has also been revised to comply with the nevfiTederal. 3 mements implemented on March 4, 1999, which are located at 49 CFR Part 26 >` golicy St r ' presses a commitment on the part of RCTC to put forth its best effortsitx:)pisadvait ` Business Enter rises in :. p all phases of its procurement activities" withygg rd toWtilditbres onDipartment of Transportation ("DOT") assisted contracts. In striving to lude DBs r • OfDOT-assistedprojects under this Program, RCTC is committed to erqhying rage neutral € as that term is defined in 49 CFR Part 26, to the maximum extent posy klle ' Only afti it make0 determination, on an annual basis, that ,,,, its overall goal for DBE participa ' in its T-assistgftroject cannot be reached through race neutral means shall RCTC emplc-t'contract.>i€ls. d )Df the PQ 1 ,ment are b ' or are available in conspicuous locations where they myby disat'''businesses and/or RCTC employees. The Policy Statement is widely diss youghd munity via press releases to the electronic and print media and by mail to f sadvaii :' : `�' kibess development organizations and local disadvantaged vendors. In,adig and immunity distribution, each member of middle and upper level managett nclud;CTC Board member, will be provided with a copy of the Policy Stater r t. (See Seam# istnbution List.) B. Prograin Objectives < > Pursuant tat .e requirements of the federal rules and regulations (49 CFR Parts 23 and 26, > t ed .;relagg to expenditures of DOT funds, the following provisions of RCTC's Program vtfi€€ir' expenditure of funds received pursuant to the Surface Transportation and Uniform Re ba. if ssistance Act of 1987 ("Act"), the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, the Federal Transportation Act, and the Federal Aviation Act. RCTC encourages ready, willing and able DBEs to become involved in all phases of its DOT assisted contracts, including but not limited to, RCTC procurement activities, fixed -price contracting, regular purchases of goods and services, and special government grant procurements, to the RVPUBWFW1517541 -1- 6/22/99 maximum extent feasible. Pursuant to this Program, RCTC may establish appropriate contract goals for expenditures on federally funded programs entered into with small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; provided, however, that it has first made a determination, on an annual basis, that its overall goals for DBE participation in DOT -assisted projects cannot be met through the use of race neutral means. To further Program goals, RCTC shall: (1) Identify DBE certified firms which are qualified troy'required goods, materials, supplies and service.;.{See Ats A, B, and (2) Develop and implement inforklOon and ., nmunii fif « ramvand procedures designed to acquak: os efirKe DBEs, at t , with RCTC's contracting and procurekcedures and requrearis; (3) Develop the necessary interdepk, efiiit l that will promote, foster and facilitate " Program; and ships within RCTC entation of this (4) Contribute to the ecp iniic st growt of DBEs. 2. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this ROO'ii In, a Mit is deft as a small business that is owned and controlled by one or moil socially conokially disadvantaged individuals. RVPUBWFW\517541 econordisadvantaged individuals means those individuals ,ens of the United States (or lawfully admitted permanent !ho are women, Black or African Americans, Hispanic iericari' Americans, Asian -Pacific Americans, or Asian -Indian xcans ar€y other minorities or individuals found to be disadvantaged 1tion 106(c) of the Act, and by the Small Business Administration ji404006 Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. However, any otherwise el€i'individual whose personal net worth is in excess of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) may not qualify for a social and onomic disadvantage status; Disadvantaged business means a small business concern: (a) That is at least 51 percent owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, or, in the case of a partnership or limited liability company, at least 51 percent of the interest is owned by one or more socially and -2- 6/22/99 economically disadvantaged individuals, as demonstrated by the substance, not merely the form, of these various ownership arrangements; and (b) Whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more of the socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who own it. 3. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DBE PROGRAM IMPLEMENT4011i A. Liaison Officer The RCTC Executive Director shall appoint a: BE Liaiw`'-0ffic manage and implement the Program on a day-to-day ba:'"�`` ::r9v415BEs with t" and disseminate information on available business oppd#1i;so that DBEs wi equitable opportunity to bid on RCTC-administered con`"'`'""`" authority for the implementation and administration oft. assist DBEs, maintain a close working relationship With local< information and recommendations in the developmxitibid pack The Liaison Officer's duties and res ..1.d k op, stance, rovided an :`lam. Liaison Officer shall have full 'uding efforts to contact and ihates, and to develop rocurement plans. ludg4 e following: (1) He or she shall lldifesponsibi6 for im lentrrting all aspects of the Program in accordance y #YrOpplicab `Federal Vale and local laws and regulations. ,.. (2) He or sh all have, ct and_bli ependent access to the RCTC Executive Direr z; ? ho shalliiiii uate staff to assist the Liaison Officer in the tie of his/iEir?aes e responsibility for monitoring Program compliance, which are set forth in greater detail in Section 5(G) below. : liaison Oft* 1. report directly to the RCTC Executive Director, who shall assign adequt' staff to assist'an Officer in the performance of his/her duties. The reporting stn*re and duties of s p staff are as follows: RVPUB\JFW\517541 Executive Director (Reconsideration Official) Eric Haley Responsibility: Ensures that DBE Policy is implemented as adopted by RCTC. -3- 6/22/99 (2) Title: Deputy Executive Director/DBE Liaison Officer Name: Responsibility: Responsible for the day-to-day operation of the DBE Policy. (3) Title: Name: Responsibility: B. Reconsideration Official Paul Blackwelder Director of Administrative Services: Naty Kopenhayx 't`..:y Assists thBE Li IS . . ,.., in ens,: ig complianc } <'through ilie r6 > <. ::x 3• rts, conducti ervie' making fiefi;ns and keeping r#a daily diary of cot."activities. The RCTC Executive Director shall be thgkimAnsideratio <E The Reconsideration Official shall be responsible for responding to ch € 0#09mplaints` ng out of or related to this DBE Program, including those related to cet.:406tion � € the res ew of good faith compliance efforts by bidding firms, and determinatOof the:;a actually performed by DBEs, except those decertification proceedings kquirinObearin cef, as set forth below in Section 8. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE RE. Mi:!i1TS Financial >G#t#ions investi h extent of services offered by financial institutions owned and controlled l•OrMliggfid ecoitii „, advantaged individuals in the Riverside area and shall make reasonable effa Ahese iri 1.alkin connection with the DOT -assisted projects. In order to determine.0010M6gancial itiffittitions, RCTC may use the investigations and determinations of other • want pubt`i4eceiving DOT assistance. Additionally, RCTC shall encourage its prime:ntractors on D`-ld projects to use such financial institutions. B. DBE Dictory The DBE ,; 6m Officer shall maintain a DBE Directory that will serve as a resource itvw DBE goals. To maintain this DBE Directory, RCTC may use, in part or in 06 Wrkortions of the DBE Directory developed and maintained by Cal -DOT. The at • otrs all include: (1) Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of certified DBE firms; (2) Types of work the firm is certified to perform as a DBE; and RVPUBWFW1517541 -4- 6/22/99 (3) Contact person for the firm; (4) The DBE directory shall also specify which firms the Federal Transportation Admnistration ("FTA"), other recipients ofDOT funding, RCTC or the Small Business Administration has determined are certified DBEs in accordance with procedures established under applicable Federal laws and regulations; and (5) The RCTC shall update its DBE directory annu ._,and: amtain a current listing of the addresses of listed firms., The DBE Directory shall only indicate the DBE stems of limitedt%€>1:not in any..?ay the listed firms with respect to licensi " bondab' x"::10:."..:: " pre -qualify p n t:3 com�3fi>�r'cial responsibility. RCTC shall do the following regarding the DBE -Ng (1) RCTC staff will refer to the DBE Direc specifications for any procutvg ts. o sending out contract (2) The DBE Directory:A e tgigny interested parties. C. Over Concentration o1 ,., If RCTC determines they i an over< oncentra*fi of DBE firms in a particular type of activity or work under its jurisdic II or con # nnduty rdening non -DBE firms from access to the activity orme of work'take ap tci ps, including, but not limited to, providing incentives: # aical assi ; _Mentor " s and other actions in order to assist DBE firms :..:... : .. P':..:: transitid work areas. RCTC�� correct an ou' DOT, awlirc,,. DBE `gram. oval prior to implementing any remedial action devised to rms in a particular activity or work. When approved by the aken regarding DBE over concentration shall become a part of this Businessevelopment and Mentor -Protegee Programs Where neeary to solicit ready, willing and able DBEs or to ensure that an over ' x%401NRE MEs does not exist in any type or activity of work, RCTC may, at its discretion, iiiiptiOnitifiess development and/or mentor -protegee programs for DBEs. Additionally, where dire ain; so by the DOT or other appropriate operating administration, RCTC shall implement such programs. These programs shall assist DBEs develop business skills and experience in areas related to the services required by the RCTC. Any such programs implemented by RCTC shall comply with the federal guidelines set forth in Appendices C and D to 49 CFR Part 26. RVPUBIJFW1517541 -5- 6/22/99 5. DETERMINING, MEETING, AND COUNTING OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOALS A. Method RCTC shall annually set overall DBE Program goals for DOT -assisted proj401'n accordance with the provisions of 49 C.F.R. Section 26.41 et sLq. The method by Akh R. • established its DBE Program goals for fiscal year 2000 are more fully set forthin the Rrched as Attachment H. B. DBE Eligibility The DBE Liaison Officer shall, where required, ettvgADBE firms listed etontractor for participation in contract work are certified as eligible Ili*, RCTC may accept any of the following as evidence of DBE eligibility: (1) Certifications made by o especially determinatiq . agency whose certiWatibn Parts 23 and 26; ipients olanding, 'cipating or local lies..ipth 49 CFR (2) Certificatiorwiiiitie by rticipatip state of local agency as valid statuxottliat ent rise, wit4tspect to the identities of the persoi€'certified;aving riership and control of the busje the Cal-DOTs computerized data bank; IJCP Directory, when implemented; and 's determined by RCTC to meet the certification criteria of 49 CFR d 26. Where the eligiNkfty of a firm has not been determined, the DBE Liaison Officer shall require tontractor and/ora3E subcontractor(s) to obtain DBE certification within thirty (30) days, WegiAmeqa ,good cause fpran extension has been shown to RCTC. all require all prime contractors to make good faith efforts to replace any DBE su 6MP or that is unable to perform successfully with another DBE subcontractor. In order to ensure that a particular substitute firm is an eligible DBE, all such substitutions of subcontractors must be approved by RCTC before bid opening and/or as soon as possible during contract performance. RVPUBWFW1517541 -6- 6/22/99 C. Race Neutral Means This Program does not establish DBE quotas or set -asides for RCTC contracts. Rather, this Program reflects a good faith effort on RCTC's part to support DBE firms that are ready, willing, and enable to carry out work on its behalf. Under no circumstances shall RCTC exclude any person or firm from participation, deny any person or firm the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against any person or firm on the basis of race, color, sex or national origin. To that end, RCTC is committed to race neutral meat of eligible for future contracting with RCTC. Specifically, RCTko outreach and public efforts, prompt payment and other Oract race neutral means, including those more fully set forth Section its DOT -assisted contracting and services agreements in - Only after it makes a determination, on an ann participation in its DOT -assisted project cannot be reac. . establish DBE contract goals for the year. D. Contract Goals ensu�l mm f' proves€ (cj belo diminatory rift{ 'DBEs may become o_ ying community er approple e ads to hat its overall goal for DBE neutral means shall RCTC RCTC shall set annual overall Da }Prograg oa September 1, 1999 for calendar year 1999 and prior to August 1st for ail. equeritears. rall DBE goals shall be based on demonstrable evidence of the availability of Dl s relative:0 all businesses ready, willing and able to participate in RCTC's DOT -as `contra, and shah *fled RCTC's determination ofthe level of DBE participation absent tlx: '=effects c �scrimi on in its jurisdiction. RCTC shall also determine tlo, extent to wht�.:t ''race neap tmay achieve its overall DBE Program goals. RCTC sl `t ,face neut i i>s to mee• all DBE Program goals to the maximum extent feasible: RCTC s t its ove 'Program goals and the analysis used to calculate them to FTA or FWI'Rxe RC'> ` a subrecipient, to the primary recipient of DOT funding, as WhB required en its its overall DBE goals, RCTC shall publish a public notice, annoutng these goals`Wbing how they were selected which shall be available for inspection duittnormal business l Orka itCTC's principal office for a 30 day period. The announcement shall al form the public tl*:FTA and/or the primary recipient and RCTC will accept comments on the for a period of *day period. The notice shall include addresses to which comments may be :end shall be published in general circulation media and available for minority -focus media and u161ications, and shall state that the comments are for informational purposes only. ere RCTC has made a determination, on an annual basis, that race neutral means are insufficient to met its overall DBE Program goals, it shall implement DBE contract goals for that year. Where necessary, the following rules and criteria shall be used by RCTC when implementing DBE participation contract goals for its DOT -assisted projects: RVPUBWFW1517541 -7- 6/22/99 (1) Contract goals need not be stated in the Program, but the Program shall contain a description of the methodology to be used in establishing them. Contract goals may, however, require approval by FTA and/or the primary recipient prior to contract solicitation. Contract goals will provide for participation by all DBEs and will not be subdivided into group specific goals. (2) The contract goals for the year shall be set, where necessarrro`that they will cumulatively result in that portion of RCTC's ovep$ `rogram goal not meet through the use of race-neutr :.•:means. >>. ": ' ' forth in the Report attached as Attachment (H), DB E < rticipa tt :::;.for DOT -fund l projects for fiscal year 2000 shall11.6% (3) RCTC may set goals for specific. tract li at may be hi` 3 er than its overall DBE goals, dependingCpe of work involv'f a location of the work and the available of D13 - work on the particular contract. Additionally, if, during the cours*: r, RCTC determines that it will fall short of its overall IMBE goal`<« ear, RCTC may make appropriate modifications tcz:• Mract go (4) If, during the coursg4, a is implementation of: S contra"go year, it shall red1,0 or elimfitb.te its # " (5) RVPUBIJFW1517541 If RCTC h ' ttitained,.OBE partic :3ation that exceeds its overall DBE goals for two copecutive f + 1 years,hall reduce its contract goals for the next fisca ccordin ?< d i ially, if RCTC has met its overall DBE goals tl ;e neutral s:for two consecutive years, it will continue to use raci<1tR�eans and not set contract goals until such time that it has not meet t BE goals for a fiscal year. etermines that through the Fits overall DBE goals for that goals to the extent necessary. h Efforts in Contract Provisions. For all projects for which contract goals have been established, RCTC shall, in the solicitation process, inform competitors that the apparent successful competitor will be required to submit DBE participation information to RCTC and that the award of the contract will be conditioned upon satisfaction of RCTC DBE requirements. (b) The apparent successful competitor's submission shall include the following information: (i) The names and addresses of DBE firms that will participate in the contract; -8- 6/22/99 (ii) A description of the work each named DBE firm will perform; (iii) The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE firm; (iv) Written documentation of the bidder's commitment to use the DBE subcontractor(s) it has submitted with its bid; and (v) Written confirmation from the DBE that it joi -rticipating in the contract in accordance with the r' ommitment to it. (c) RCTC may select the tim . ,subrri BE informatign, provided that the times 'OW before ROC commits itself to the pe .4fmance ofaie coilea 'fent successful competitor. (d) If the DBE participation su apes not meet the DBE Program goals, the apparent succe .r, shall satisfy RCTC that the competitor has made gotid'faith4Oir et the goals, as set forth below. (e) MeetingDB od fail :efforts or meeting RCTC's DBE partigifi&ion ggtits NW of receiving a FTA assisted contract (2) Bidders Fg to A nye the WE Goals (a) wht«E ieve specified DBE contract goals (where **red) sli t, within 3 days after the request of the DBE €x� Officer, documentation demonstrating that good faith efforts pd in an attempt to meet such goals, and explaining why the 6.-101iiiiot be achieved and why meeting the goal was beyond the contragt4's control. Should RCTC make a determination that the der failed to make good faith efforts to reach required DBE goals, - -bidder may request an Administrative reconsideration. Good faith efforts may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following activities: (i) Attendance at any pre -bid meeting as may be scheduled by RCTC to inform prospective contractors and DBEs of subcontracting opportunities for the subject project. (ii) Identify portions of the work to be performed by subcontractors in which DBEs may participate. -9- RVPUBUFW1517541 6/22/99 RVPUBIJFW1517541 (iii) Advertise in general circulation media, trade associations publications, and/or disadvantaged focus media identifying specific subcontracting opportunities. (iv) Solicit through all reasonable and available means within a reasonable time frame the interest of all DBEs which have the capacity to perform the work on the contract. (v) Provide interested DBE subcg: #ctc1 ' with adequate information about the plans, sp.,. Wiwfs and requirements of the contract. (vi) Negotiate in gooc<ith withterestel<id.naeject them as unquali :>.. witha sound re ' on a thorough investig tp;d6 it capabilities. ' .... - (vii) Assist interested l insurance required. by bonding, lines of credit, or ontractor. (viii) Use of „1107 , s of ` able DBE community orgaq*bons, ` a ed tractor groups, local, state angbaeral D i o' lc,ier organizations that provide astance iriytie rec41ffleitt and placement of DBEs. (ix`'1Vlake ;worts to mist interested DBEs obtain necessary equip#144 supplies, materials, or services. y ;€reans of making good faith efforts set forth in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 26. econtractor does not make the explanation required abovr'RCTC determines that the explanation does not justify the ilure to meet the applicable goal, RCTC may direct the Fier/contractor to take appropriate remedial action. Failure to do o shall be deemed a material breach of any contract or agreement or grounds for disqualifying the bid. If the contractor executes an agreement with a subcontractor which it reasonably believes may be considered a DBE, the contractor shall continue to receive credit for the work actually performed by the subcontractor, even after RCTC makes a determination that the subcontractor is not eligible for DBE certification. However, that portion of the subcontractor's work actually performed after RCTC makes a determination that the subcontractor is not eligible for DBE certification may not be counted toward RCTC's overall DBE Program goals. -10- 6/22/99 F. Counting DBE Participation Once a firm has been certified by Cal -DOT or other appropriate recipient of DOT -assistance as a bona fide DBE, the total dollar value of the work actually performed by the DBE may be counted toward the Program goal, provided the DBE performs a commercially useful function. In determining what proportion of the expenditure shall be applied towards the DBE goal, the criteria set forth in 49 CFR Section 26.55 and the following shall apply: (1) The total dollar amount of the contract actually; subcontractor who is a DBE. (2) When a DBE performs work for "T C as pad dollar amount equal to the distinct:; dearly de£n0 portTc t out on the contract by the DBE rt a coated towards't Attachments A and B) (3) is not the manufacturer DBE manufacturer by a DBE or a �Tture, the •:teal .�vAlthea a]. (see Only 60% of the expenditures focal}supplies required under the contract and obtained from reg ltsr dealajaWit ,DBEs, as defined in 49 C.F.R. Section 26.55, may, —Owed tow aird goals if the vendor ch expenes may be counted if the (4) If the DBE is not::rnanufaet-er or atrdealer, the following fees and/or commissions: a 'be counted, provid d that the fee and/or commission is not unreasona '� "exce a as deter ned by RCTC as judged in comparison with custaary fees,) .'imilal:'vices: ..fees or tOwnssions charged for providing a bona fide service, €'s professional, technical, consultant or managerial services and in the procurement of essential personnel, facilities, e " OW materials or supplies required for the contract may be court fees charged for delivery of materials and supplies required on the bb site (but not the cost of the materials and supplies) when the hauler, trucker or delivery service is not also the manufacturer or a regular dealer in the materials and supplies. (c) The fees or commissions charged for providing any bonds or insurance specifically required for the performance of the contract. No prime contractor may terminate for convenience any DBE subcontractor listed in its bid and perform the work with its own forces or those of an affiliate without RCTC's prior written approval. RVPUBWFW1517541 -11- 6/22/99 G. Program Monitoring The Liaison Officer shall be responsible for monitoring all aspects of the DBE Program, including ensuring that all prime contractors and subcontractors on DOT -assisted projects are applying, where necessary, the legal remedies set forth in 49 CFR Section 26.29 and under state and local law. He or she shall require that applicants for DBE certification and DBEs to timely submit all required documentation, including affidavits, to RCTC. Additionally, the Liaison: Officer, or his or her designee, shall ensure that DBEs submit all required documentation yen ing t i work actually performed by DBEs on projects receiving DOT -assistance. To this end ;ig Li<an Officer, or his or her designee, must obtain and tabulate payments made to IRE firmk contractors and subcontractors on DOT -assisted projects) on all RCTC prof ceivir istance. No credit toward overall or contract goals shall be given unless a ., until the t st : , or his or:Ser designee, has confirmed that payment on a DOT -assist ed$ project ha been acfi€t it et. 't BE certified firm or individual. 6. REQUIRED CONTRACT PROVISIONS A. Statement of Non -Discrimination RCTC requires that each financial assi statement: ? nt it signs a include the following The recipient shall not d: criminat,dinn the 6u4 .. `race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and pei r� ance or my DOT- i sted contract or in the administration t of its DBE progra ` `-the re .p ements 9049 CFR part 26. The recipient shall take all necessary and.sonable;s und±9 CFR part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination :r:.::.;: .:. , in the awarr � c µ dministr " 'T-assisted contracts. The recipients DBE g x i::::: � {` ;d by 49 ` `f 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by xo ram:::: ; ; _.„ ence ift kliiittgnent. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and .iremmi,to car r}''•'alirms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon plbm to tf ' Aiiij 'it of its failure to carry out its approved program, the .kiiiiiiiiiiiiiitt:::may iMetige sanctions as provided for under part 26 and may, in a ro' `>k"4r44�`` refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the PP I < .,:': s� Prograrrtwil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.)." RCTC requires tit its contracts with prime contractors and prime contractor subcontractors cacts shall includ g v...,:..:.:ie following provision: contractor, subrecipient or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of ce, color, national origin, or sex in the performance ofthis contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR part 26 in the award and administration ofDOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate." RVPUBWFW1517541 -12- 6/22/99 B. Prompt Payment Provisions RCTC requires that its contracts with prime contractors and prime contractor/subcontractor contracting shall include the following provisions: "No later than Thirty (30) working days after receiving payment of retention from RCTC for work satisfactorily performed by any of its subcontractors for services rendered arising out of or related to this Agreement, CONTRACTQltihall make full payment to its subcontractors of all compensation due ar <4wintender the relevant subcontract agreement, unless excused by .,IACTC f ' because pursuant to . provisions of Section 1.1 below." "No later than Thirty (30) days after recOng paymtt'of retNmvaimigive— t R for work satisfactorily performed by any o:..sul>tractors fo�::.:}.:'hdered arising out of or related to this Agree iTRACTOR sham.izi• make full payment to its subcontractors of all retentia�s�: subcontract agreement, unless excuse provisions of Section 1.1 below." "1.1 Good Cause d by it pursuant to the relevant good cause pursuant to "CONTRACTORa�[ay onlyela'e any payment obligation (or retention) to anyif its subo i tracto . 'services rendered arising out of or related to tt greeme #''where, OP CTC's sole estimation, good cause exists for SU 'dilelay;f postpone tnt. All such determinations on RCTC's part tha>}>�good c ``exist`;::for the delay or postponement of COZ TOR's a. gation to its subcontractor must be made in t€: €6:r to the ti~ieri payment to the subcontractor would have been otf-Oa ' by CONTRACTOR." R.Oft requir' i. contrOgg. shall include ntracts with prime contractors and prime contractor/subcontractor . wing provision: "In addk.:€n to those contract remedies set forth under relevant provisions of Califo�8 law, either party to this Agreement may, where applicable, seek legal redr;�'�for violations of this Agreement pursuant to relevant provisions of49 C.F.R. {: n"C `s 23 and 26, to relevant federal or state statutory provisions governing civil rights 's olations, and to relevant federal and state provisions governing false claims or `whistle blower' actions, as well as any and all other applicable federal and state provisions of law." RVPUBWFW1517541 -13- 6/22/99 D. Administrative Remedies RCTC requires that its contracts with prime contractors contain the following provision: "CONTRACTOR's failure to make good faith efforts to comply with RCTC's DBE program shall be considered a material breach of this AGREEMENT and may give rise to certain administrative penalties and proceedings, including, butnot limited to, those set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 26.107." E. DBE Program Compliance RCTC requires that its contracts with prime contr contracting shall include the following provision: Y` V. subcontra br "RCTC has established a DBE Program p0 49 C.F.R. Partch applies } ..:. to this Agreement. The requirements andM44(0s. of RCTC's DBE Program are hereby incorporated by reference into tWAlf 1 Wikf ailure by any party to this Agreement to carry out RCTC's DBE'Trograiii..es and requirements or applicable requirements of 49 C.F.R«> 6 shall b� ' d a material breach of this Agreement, and may be groin erwation of th agreement, or such other appropriate administrative rlityMy. ao thigAgreement shall ensure that compliance with RCTC ,s ;DBE Pro r'<>jncluded in any and all sub - agreements entered intg011ich ari*Out of € :related to this Agreement." 7. CERTIFICATION STAI ' '. w`artnet ''`< C� :myidual submitting bids to RCTC has the burden of proof by a prepondera < "< evidei rd to show that it has met the requirements for DBE certification. 1fs�z3'���'�'" etermiri'garding DBE eligibility, social and economic disadvantage (as defined be uttably' ..oumed where the firm, partnership or individual has submitted h. >.:::�:::>:.<.::.--,.. af1'idavitN0 requir �� ing documentation representing that it holds a social and economic disady Cage status, as. i�' e1ow. The presumption of social and economic disadvantage may be r tted where, in R ` irestimation and in accordance with the procedures for determining >:,.. .. . cation eligibility St forth below, insufficient evidence supports the affidavit of the firm, Ai... ership or individu€#rclaiming such social and economic disadvantage status. .: .: I:te RCTC has a reasonable basis to doubt an individual's or firm's claim of social MNvx 8ssadvanta a it shall require the individual or firm to demonstrate, by a preponderance ofy if&ice, that he or she falls within a category of social and economic disadvantage and may institute, where applicable, a certification review proceeding as more fully described in Section 8 below. All firms, partnerships, or individuals who do not submit affidavits asserting social and economic disadvantage status, or whose assertion of social and economic disadvantage has been - 14- RVPUBWFW1517541 6/22/99 rebutted, will not be presumed to hold such a status and bear the burden of demonstrating to RCTC that they are socially and economically disadvantaged. B. Definitions (1) "Disadvantaged Business" is a small business concern owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. (2) "Socially and Economically Disadvantagedi�1 individuals who are citizens of the :united permanent residents) and who argMilhen, Hispanic Americans, Native Amerms, Asian-,?! Indian Americans and any other i>viduals fend to be. Small Business Administration p nt t Y {) .•:... ~' t� action 8 a ot"� �`�`�V` Act. RCTC shall make a rebu sumption that in fir following groups are socially and''ly disadvantaged: "Black or African Amercans," wt of any of the Black ..... coups or "Hispanic 0ira Rican, Curti, Centre'` Spanish �ture or,Qiygin, re'' • 4.4Y " is, ski 'yid "' means those ver "r.. lawfully admitted ican American., ftrasnns, or A ``r e the €siness als in the s persons having origins lud406rsons of Mexican, Puerto `erican, Portuguese or other € IOS of race; erns," whitincludes persons who are American €r Native Hawaiians; Sian-Paciecans, which includes persons whose origins are it van, China, Taiwan, Korea, Burma (Myanmar),Vietnam, Laos, (Kampuchea), Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the 'lti `Brunei, Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Trust Territories of the acif`Zepublic of Palua), the Commonwealth of the Northern .arianas Islands, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kirbat, Juvalu, Mauru, kierated States of Micronesia, or Hong Kong; "Subcontinent Asian Americans," which includes persons whose origins are from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands, Nepal or Sri Lanka; (0 Women; (g) Any additional groups whose members are designated as socially and economically disadvantaged by the SBA; and RVPUBUFW\517541 -15- 6/22199 (3) (4) RVPUBWFW1517541 (h) RCTC may determine that individuals who are not a member of one of the above -listed groups are socially and economically disadvantaged. "Rebuttal ofPresumption ofDisadvantage" means there is creditable evidence supporting a finding that an individual presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged has a personal net worth in excess of Seven Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($750,000), or a reliable basis to believe that the individual is not a member of escribed socially disadvantaged group. "Small Business Concern" means 0mall busi ss Section 3 of the Small Business.4kt and relevant reg pursuant thereto. If a business i `ik t a KW business cottt Yvii: eligible DBE regardless of (Ay*. by socially an disadvantaged individuals. (a) (b) In general, a small business concel group of concerns cart disadvantaged iips?<. gross receipts.' tkces` years. (Se9,1 C.F.Rif from timd>#o time fdf"in >» fed pursuagto o r�ated �� snot an anomically :t include any concern or ed by theally and economically „ndividualsw Lich has annual average illigOVer the previous three fiscal This figure may be adjusted atio whether Aparticular business is a small business all ANK, the standards established by. the Small *Part 121 et se_q.) which may impose more Ss receipt restrictions, depending on the type of �wned ai'olled" is defined as a business concern that is at least 51 nt ow i> by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged ls, or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent k of which is owned by one or more socially and economically ti 4fitaged individuals, or, in the case of a partnership or limited liability hmany, at least 51 percent of the interest is owned by one or more socially ::€'d economically disadvantaged individuals, as demonstrated by the Substance, not merely the form, of these various ownership arrangements. "Joint Venture" is an association of two or more businesses formed to carry out a single business enterprise for profit, for which purpose they combine their property, money, efforts, skills and knowledge. -16- 6/22/99 Firms Not Presumed to Be Socially or Economically Disadvantaged. The RCTC has established a procedural form (see Attachment C) for the certification determination of individuals who are not members of one of the presumed socially and economically disadvantaged groups listed above. A. (1) Individuals applying for certification who must meet the following criteria: (d) Their business must be a small business cce They must have had a perso.perien antial and chrome social disadvantage in Am.an societyy ountries.< They must possess at lea social disadvantage: that disadvantage stems from``' handicap; long-term reside mainstream of AmericarNociety control. . 'following fe" �'`` ' ' «` ` ividual ust feel that their`t ual social der; national origin; physical ' 'ronment isolated from the "'milar cause beyond their They must idronst'i>`" ' ativ'impact on entry into or advancem'in the Ijsin€#•cause of social disadvantage. This may* determii ed by aittildermg the following: =duca�i They..n demonstrate they have been denied equaltess to::;_ iciness or professional schools, curricula, excli;>'social and professional association with studoggian Teachers, educational honors, or any other social ;;.patterns of pressure which have discouraged them from suing a professional or business education. `nployment. They can demonstrate unequal treatment in hiring, promotions, professional advancement, or other terms or conditions of employment. (iii) Business History. They can demonstrate unequal access to credit or capital, acquisition of credit or capital, or other unequal treatment in pursuing and obtaining business opportunities. TIFICATION PROCEDURES Unified Certification Program Prior to March 4, 2002, RCTC intends to enter into an agreement with other DOT RVPUBUFW1517541 -17- 6/22/99 funding recipients in California in order to establish a Unified Compliance Program ("UCP"), which shall establish a list of firms that have received state-wide DBE certification. RCTC intends to adopt the UCP Directory, when implemented, to establish its DBE Program eligibility. B. Initial Certification Program Until it has entered a UCP agreement, RCTC shall establish procedures designed to ensure that this Program secures only those firms which meet the DBE certification require ts, as defined b federal law and regulations. RCTC may accept as evidence of eli i ' y gu y p g ) celcations made by other recipients of DOT funding as more fully described in Se ion 5 B F' aril RCTC will use Cal -DDT's certification determinations when evaluating D igibil In order to determine whether a firm is an eligl a DBE ui its irii`'±sxQB certification RCTC shall at a minimum ensure that t low,' s have' ```'`}`x'' `}`� the 'o._ g p ..�'��' y certifying agency: Perform an on -site visit to the offtc dgnd to any job sites on which the firm is working at the time tithe eligi • #tigation; Obtain the resumes and and personally inter`!`�� ries of th ese<t'Sx tas; ncipal owners of the firm Analyze the own `ship of,g ikk in tl if it is a corporation, and analyze the bonding:.atc sinancideapacity o'the firm; (4) Determine work Iry of trm, including contracts it has received and wor.):1 comple ile a list of equipment owned or available to the firm and the firm and its key personnel to perform the work it seeks to BE Program; and ' ,§tatement from the firm of the type of work it prefers to perform as p#• € 'DBE Program. When making drminations regarding certification, RCTC shall consider all facts contained record as a whae. Additionally, all information provided by bidders or contractors that is :IWO O by contracIs being proprietary information and which RCTC reasonably determines is R'€1ik 'confidential by RCTC to the extent allowed by law. any time during the bidding process or after the applicant has been awarded a RCTC contract, a change in circumstances has occurred affecting the applicant's ability to continue to claim a DBE status, it must submit written notification, in the form of an affidavit, of this change and the reasons therefor to RCTC within Thirty (30) days of the occurrence of the change. Where the factual basis upon which a decision DBE certification has changed, RCTC may at any time conduct a certification review of the firm prior to its regular time for recertification. RVPUBWFW1517541 -I 8- 6/22199 Where required, RCTC shall make its determination of a firm's eligibility for initial DBE certification within ninety (90) days of receiving all the required information from the applicant. RCTC may extend the time in which to consider a firm's eligibility for DBE certification by an additional sixty (60) days; provided written notice is given to the applicant of the delay in the determination and the reasons therefor. In the event RCTC determines that an applicant is not eligible for a DBE:status, it shall provide the applicant with written reasons why this determination has been mad Ball applicants whose applications for DBE status have been denied by RCTC may app o tlitOT pursuant to the procedures and provisions of 49 CFR 26.89. C. Recertification Procedures Unless the factual basis upon which the DBE's it € ;ce :i ation has chats"`"` >i A onable grounds exists for a certification review, RCTC shall ens t **011 firms on its DBE 'ike'ctory have been recertified every three (3) years, on or about the fii::yersary date of its initial DBE certification with RCTC. Additionally, the firm must;.; `"A00.1N• and Cal -DOT with annual affidavits by its owner(s) by the anniversary date of thefirm's it�':t� .cation stating that there have been no changes in the firm's circumstances :::a ng it abil nue to meeting DBE certification requirements. Failure to provide tl Oitiftat avit may. rounds for denial of DBE recertification. D. Reconsideration and 1�pplicatn Proc Any bidder whose contentI fgood:MO i efforts;tcomply with RCTC DBE Program goals has been denied b RCTC shall eve an o `` y ppnity,..,1ts request, to have the matter reconsidered by RCTC. .if,so requested; ie} adder wil' portunity to meet with the Reconsideration Officer, 90 •: o• her deb,::: ::.,. "discuss " :s ecision denying the good faith efforts claim of tip;:.. ., :..:: .:, .... ...::.. the bidd , howe'<e bidder present documentation and written argument prior to such a reciQ ��n mee ::.. ' ssmg the adequacy of the bidder's good faith efforts. Subsequent to` `��� 0:04, RCT bvide a written response to the bidder, explaining the basis for its dete :��:��;�k�•-:�::, rt :3 :`t al:latter. , rsuant to 49 CFR section 26.53, RCTC's reconsideration determirn is not"i ��`��-:'': •:. to the DOT. ?Lh Where RCTC hatli'inined that any portion of DBE participation claimed by a contractor hint served a commezally useful function pursuant to 49 CFR section 26.55, the contractor may :>.6w . • de evidence to * Reconsideration Officer rebutting this finding on RCTC's part. Any went determt € on by RCTC finding that a DBE did not serve a commercially useful purpose "`f "'" l'»assisted projects may be appealed to the operation federal administrative but not W v.;;;;: p J Y Pp p Any firm whose DBE status has been denied by RCTC may not reapply for DBE certification until Twelve (12) months have passed since the previous application was made. For purposes of determining when this twelve month period begins to accrue, the date upon which the applicant receives its written notice of denial from the RCTC shall be considered the date upon which the application has been denied. RVPUB\JFW\517541 -19- 6/22/99 E. Removal Procedures Any person may file a complaint alleging that a firm currently on RCTC's DBE Directory may not claim a DBE status; provided, however, any complaints must state the reasons therefor and provide information supporting the complaint. The identities of individuals submitting such complaints shall be kept confidential by RCTC pursuant to the terms of 49 C.F.R. Section 26.109(b). However, in the event a decertification proceeding is commenced, the third party complainant shall be informed by RCTC that the complaint will be disclosed to the firm sought to be decertified..; When seeking to remove firms that have already .#eceived:.:3r>>trtification from its Directory on the basis of a third party complaint or on the bOrtifits owi a information and belief, RCTC shall do the following: RVPUBWFW1517541 (1) (2) If RCTC determines that there RCTC shall provide the affec decertification and a statement of rta shall also include a statement to t on the matter. RCTC shall appoint an, with DOT DBE certation RCTC's considergg n of t individual may, (3) A court re...t, or proceedi4 shall procrtis. Sho< sta decisio'` soe cause to x< `e firm, pt e; with notice °Nat''proposed decertification. This notice ''ified of its right to a hearing e officer`>;``e hearing who is familiar s butidio has not been involved in WOW • iiew for decertification. This native law judge. r state-c,fified transcriber of public adjudicatory a ver3m record of the decertification hearing Riikequest DOT review of the hearing officer's W 'shall provide a certified transcript ofthe hearing rec3# rm at the firm's expense. . the he e firm under consideration for decertification shall be :. mAded an .rtunity to respond to the reasons for the proposed action and bility to provide information and arguments on the matter. • ring officer shall make a determination on the matter based upon the rord and only based upon the grounds for decertification set forth below. The hearing officer's decision shall also include a statement of decision and `'ihe reasons therefor as set forth in (6) below. However, the decision may not be based on a reinterpretation or changed opinion of the information available to RCTC at the time of the certification of the firm. The hearing officer's decision affirming RCTC's proposed decertification decision must be based on one of the following grounds: (a) Changes in the firm's circumstances have occurred since the certification of the firm that have rendered it ineligible for DBE certification, -20- 6/22/99 (5) RVPUBUFW1517541 F. (b) Information was not available to RCTC at the time the firm was certified which serves as an independent basis for the firm's decertification; Information was concealed or misrepresented by the firm in previous certification actions submitted by the firm; A change in certification standards has occurred sin the firm; or (e) A documented finding of„ err certification of the firm (6) The hearing officer shall provide complainant, where applicable, wii a statement of reasons for the deci§i07 record supporting each reason: decision shall be provided to theRC The firm shall remain aid entity, decertification has bf..40:--rovi les. (7) DOT Review • •• . e decertifie P party • of the decision, w 'stall include references made to the II. Additionally, notice of t the decision regarding An applicant may appeal, brtific. .:On or de tification denial made determination by . a?' RCTC to the DOT pursuant to t ' • rocedur:" •nd providons of 49 C.F.R. Section 26.89. A bidder .. may not apppl to the DOT, ... .0 deternmattM. t it has not made good faith efforts to comply ........................ with the rogram.x .......„........„„,.... nd Enforcement •-ifICTC will manilla of all firms bidding on prime contracts or subcontracts on DOT project. This lis •-•"." • • .:tontain the following information: (1)::arm name; Address; Firm's DBE or non -DBE status; Age of firm; and Annual gross receipts. -21- 6/22/99 B. Monitoring Payments to DBEs RCTC employs a record keeping system which will facilitate the monitoring of the DBE Program. This system provides necessary data for FTA compliance reviews and uniform reporting requirements. Specifically, RCTC shall maintain records on the following: (1) Procedures which have been adopted to impleme isv... gram, including technical assistance efforts and referrOond core" € on procedures. 2 Contracts awarded to DBEs inch" 'n - name >:x{ () .t `g `� ` wof work, to al value of the contract and/or sub ::, tract an over ..:<..<:A `.`1 de �'a,e.<sBE awards. (3) Specific efforts to identify and await and names of firms contacted and:., names of DBEs responding att the procurement was advertised. <, (4) (5) Payments made by pi to DBEs including the number 1�n a contract, the number of vHimmug in which the contract h contractors. All documentati*related..��p�the met. :IS overall DBE goals through race neutral meanly:>dr d contr*'goals. Ofita related to race neutral and contract goals DBF ram agiii&ementsiltiall be kept and recorded separately. Reporting:.>ements 410 required by «' administrative 10. P:l`1<,IC P iiitiORry reports to the DOT, or other administrating agency, as .TC sl ,. its annual DBE Program goals to the DOT, or other t the saitiliatiquired by law. ION AND OUTREACH Advertik0 of Notice to Bidders RCTC, in addian to any advertising required by law for construction bids, will provide bid 3ation to the owing: RVPUBWFW1517541 Local and regional DBE focused publications, containing project description, pre -bid meeting date, bid opening date and a notice to disadvantaged contractors and/or subcontractors indicating that they may obtain lists of prospective contractors as well as contract specifications from RCTC. (2) Disadvantaged contractors and/or subcontractors who are identified as firms that may render the necessary construction activity. -22- 6/22/99 (2) (3 ) The following disadvantaged oriented contractor associations: Minority Contractors Association Riverside County Builders Association American Subcontractors Association Southern California Regional Processing Council B. Pre -bid Conference (1) The contract specifications for constn4ion pro date, and place for the pre -bid confWes, if Prospective contractors shall be p Wided wit:0oppo subcontracting requirements. (3) In addition, the conditions of requirements, project details and, C. Outreach Techniques (1) RCTC employs variobutrea of the Program gn3' designate the time, and other equal employment fitiVethires shall be discussed. ed to facilitate achievement (2) Such technict;s�nay incde, but mi0 not be limited to: A. mg b ckag 8 tid requests for proposals so as to increase pective pation; .'ng assistance to DBEs in overcoming barriers such as the obtain funding, financing or technical assistance; dve ng contracting opportunities in a timely manner to the DBE mmunity allowing adequate time for the development of responsive •'responsible bids; Suggesting and encouraging the formation of joint ventures among DBE and majority firms; and Maintaining an "open door" policy for DBEs whereby they may seek technical assistance on bid requirements, conditions and projected procurement activities. D. Information Services The DBE Liaison Officer shall be responsible for developing and implementing procedures by which DBE firms may be assisted in participating in RCTC procurement activities. RCTC shall RVPUBWFW1517541 -23- 6/22/99 attempt to inform the DBE community with the nature, scope and requirements of the procurement process through seminars, workshops and other related and applicable resources. Efforts shall include compiling and maintaining a list of agencies which could offer assistance to DBEs in financial, technical and personnel management, as may be appropriate in areas of need by DBEs. The list shall include a description of the services provided by these agencies and will be available to interested parties. E Distribution List for DBE Policy Statement (See Policy Statement at Attachment F) Postings: RCTC Web Page RCTC Administrative Office Inland Area Urban League Greater Palm Springs Hispani#er of Commerce Coachella Valley Mexican Ameimber of Commerce African American Chamber of:C6i i�:@E "< Greater Riverside Chamber o€Comore:; F. DBE Mailing List - Media Carit#t (1) (2) Press Enterprise;; P.O. Box 792 Riverside, A 92263-2735 b x 827 ton, CA 92324 �'KCAL TV -Radio Inland Empire Bureau 1009 S. Commuter Center West San Bernardino, California (6) Precinct Reporter 1677 W. Baseline San Bernardino, CA 92411 RVPUBIJFW1517541 -24- 6/22/99 (7) Hispanic Greater Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 5872 Riverside, CA 92507 (8) KDIF 1465 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92501 G. Internal Distribution of Policy Statement: H. Commissioner Jack van Haaster,;l Commissioner Tom Mullen, Coffi Commissioner Bob Buster, Conk Commissioner John F. Tavagli Commissioner James A. Venab Commissioner Roy Wilson, Court Commissioner John Hunt, Ci Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner CommissiW Commiser Co }`#-iner Jan Leja, C.itylt BeoafuB Robert Cr�i John �".�._.....'..>-...,,:.., EuitlMourep Gory S,Ii.-1?tfrst1 ian M. Kara, �...:.:, Puga, .of of Rivet of Riv ilde �0ntitir of Rivers' .ty of Riverside 'ix�rside t of „,.mesa oanyon Lake `athedral City Coachella ty of Corona i,Airman `iairman rerman, Criiy of Desert Hot Springs eeser. ewe, City of Hemet ;City of Indian Wells ts9Eii�o.ner Chjtiva, City of Indio oli)infi fjw ' John J. Pena, City of La Quinta omuilevin W. Pape, City of Lake Elsinore mmisiiii.eink West, City of Moreno Valley ission�--T Frank Hall City Norco loner Dick Kelly, City of Palm Desert s::6ner William G. Kleindienst, City of Palm Springs k:,i y}. CFi iitssioner AI Landers, City of Perris mmissioner Donald F. Yokaitis, City of Rancho Mirage , commissioner Alex Clifford, City of Riverside Commissioner Jim Smedley, City of San Jacinto Commissioner Ron Roberts, City of Temecula Commissioner Stan Lisiewicz, Caltrans District 08 Riverside County Transportation Commission Staff: Executive Director Deputy Executive Director Directors RVPUBWFW1517541 -25- 6/22/99 Chief Financial Officer Program Managers Staff Analysts 11. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW It is RCTC's intention to comply with all applicable federal larws, reguons, or other requirements governing its DBE Program, including, but not limite.:' ``"procedures and requirements set forth 49 C.F.R. Parts 23 and 26 and those es lished 14860 BE. To the extent that any provision or procedure set forth in this Program cts or is ttrifp with any federl law, regulation or other requirement, the federal law, refit abon or of `' Nvilwitisgt shall go ' the implementation of this Program. RVPUBIJFW1517541 -26- 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT A INFORMATION FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE STATUS FIRM NAME TELEPHO (complete official name of company) ADDRESS CITY (complete street address - not P.O. bcr STATE OWNER (or executive officer) CONTACT PERSON LEGAL STRUCTURE: Sole Proprieto If incorporated, indicate in MIL YEARS IN BUSINESS BUSINESS LICENSE NO. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE PRIMARY BUSINESS SECOND NAME T AdP 1. 3. TI Date: AO' ZIP d number) orporation ONIRNG CAPABILITY ITrWHERE LICENSED :it LICENSE EXPIRES *Oppc - what:ur company do?) PRIM AL CLIENTS 2. W SHALL WE LIV YOUR COMPANY ON OUR BID LIST? Sub Contractor RVPUBWFW1517541 A- l .6/22/99 ATTACHMENT A DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE Definition "Disadvantaged business" ('DBE") means a small business concern: (a) which is at least 51 percent owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; and (b) whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more of the socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who own it. "Small business concern" means a small business as defined pursuant to Sectic'>%: a Small Business Act and relevant regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, except that a sma *.!iness.t : :all not include any concern or group of concerns controlled by the same socially and economic.sadvantLual or individls which has annual average gross receipts in excess of $16.6 million overt previous tie fl *Lesser ttnual gross receipt ceilings may apply to particular businesses and serviceso "Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" means tha (or lawfully admitted permanent residents) and who are women„ Americans, Asian -Pacific Americans, or Asian -Indian American disadvantaged by the Small Business Administration pursuant, to otherwise eligible individual whose personal net worth exce as a socially and economically disadvantaged for pure ..:..........: Sects n Hundr ��ertificatiq€`<1 als who are citizens of the United States ericans, Hispanic Americans, Native :.. . %:norities or individuals found to be he Small Business Act. Any FY{:. it ty ($750,000) may not qualify IS YOUR FIRM A DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ASipEFI1 VE? YES NO BASIS UPON WHICH YOU CLAIM DISVANTt ED ST BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICA4.:.. HISPAAM NATIVftiettl WOMEN THE FOLLOW INFORIV ' THOSE FIR,kik CLAIMING 11 4PACIFIC AMERICAN `AN-INDIAN AMERICAN SBA 8(a) CERTIFIED OTHER (Please explain) ECTIONS 1 through 9 & AFFIDAVIT) IS REQUIRED FROM ONLY INTAGED BUSINESS STATUS: If this fir r other firms, with€ 4iy of these same officers, have previously received certification or participation as a DBE h quired by the fgHiSwing, please provide the name of the certifying agency and submit copies of the docum "'" a 't relied u p 'obtaining certification as a DBE. RVPUBUFW1517541 A-2 6122rss ATTACHMENT A 1. OWNERSHIP OF FIRM: Identify those individuals who own an interest of 5% or more in the firm. If the firm is less than 100 percent minority owned, list the contributions of money, equipment, real estate, or expertise of each of the owners. A B D E F G H NAME OF OWNERS U.S. CITIZEN YES NO ETHNICITY (RACE) SEX YEARS OF OWNERSHIP OWNERSHIP VOTING PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTIONS h. rQi AA :r 2. CONTROL OF FIRM: x Identify by name, ethnicity, sex, and title in the firm those isndividual40 `?µ` Ngowners and non -owners) who are responsible for day-to-day management and::p• r 1,sion mak— • uding but not limited to, those with prime responsibility for: (1) Financial decisions (2) Management decisions, su c. 'mod firin ;' ement personnel • or items or supplies (3) .;_ >''Supervision of fi '' fations 3. 1rt; "h ach of those listedove, provide a brief summary of the person's experience and number of years with m, indicating tIerson's qualifications for the responsibilities given him or her. RVPUBIJFW1517541 A-3 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT A 4. Describe or attach a copy of any stock options or other ownership options that are outstanding, and any agreements between owners or between owners and third parties which restrict ownership or control of disadvantaged business owners. 5. Identify any owner (see Item 1) or management official (see Item 2) of Ow named rm who is or has been v2 "i: an employee of another firm that has an ownership interest in or a preS : 14its relationship with the named firm. Present business relationships include shared spa.equip#cing, or employees, as well as both firms having some of the same owners. 6. If this firm, or other firms with any of the same offiats, Ifl '> ously been denied certification of participation as a DBE, please describe the circumstances surrotr enial. 7. What are the gross receipts of the fitMor eackf the las free years? Year ending 19_ $ >' Name o nding con* u authorized to dCbustness in this state, as well as locally, including all necessary business licenses? (NO)_ Ind4te other state(s) RVPUBWFW1517541 A-4 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT A AFFIDAVIT The undersigned swears that the foregoing statements are true and correct and include all material information necessary to identify and explain the operations of (name of firm) as well as the ownership thereof. Further, the undersigned agrees to provide, through the prime contractor or, if no prime contractor, directly to RCTC, complete and accurate information regarding actual work performed on the project, the payment therefore and any proposed changes, if any, of the foregoing arrangements, and to permit RCTC and/or its agents to audit and examine books, records and files of the named firm. Any material migepresentation will be grounds for terminating any contract which may be awarded and for initiating motion uqtT�applicable Federal or State laws concerning false statements. NOTE: If, after filing this Attachment A and before the work of t> rm is this regulation, there is any significant change in the informationAbmitted, yam}"inE through the prime contractor or, if no prime contractor, inform-- TC dimly. SIGNATURE NAME TITLE DATE CORPORATE SEAL :>'> DATE STATE; COUNTY NOTARY PUBLI ON THIS ~ ` } DAY O>µ' _ > .' 19 before me appeared (name) to me person# known, who, bejg gaily sworn, did execute the foregoing affidavit, and did state he or she was properly itorized by (name Arm) to execute the affidavit and did so as his o`free act and dee ,the contract revered by TC ofithe change SEAL: NOTARY FitLIC COMMISSION EXPIRES RVPUBWFW1517541 A-5 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT B INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING JOINT VENTURE ELIGIBILITY (This form need not be completed if all joint venture firms are certified DBEs.) 1 Name of joint venture 2. Address of joint venture 3. Phone number of joint venture 4. Identify the firms which comprise the joint venture. a. Describe the role of the DBE firm in the joint y,u b. Describe very briefly the experience and Name Experience and Quo 5. Nature of the joint venture's ualification '.. anent A. ch non -DBE joint venturer: usss 6. Provide.:the joy;.agreem�it�€= ;wnership? 7. What is the i"' 8. Ownership. N4440 is nee of be completed if described in the joint venture agreement provided in resp to question``' Profit and loss s Capital contribon, including equipment >. Other applicJownership interests 9. *MINI of and pareiPation in this contract. Identify by name, race, sex, and "firm" those individuals (and ?1hitining responsible for day-to-day management and policy decision making, including, but not 1�cs+e with prime responsibility for: RVPUBIJFW1517541 B-1 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT B NAME RACE SEX TITLE a. FINANCIAL DECISIONS b. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS SUCH AS: (1) ESTIMATING (2) MARKETING & SALES (3) HIRING AND FIRING OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL (4) PURCHASING OF MAJOR ITEMS OR SUAMS 40111, NiMOM c. SUPERVIS'1 FIELD OPE ICI iiTiJl�ti��i�t57t 7tiljb NOTE: If der submitting this a tad' ment B and before the completion of the joint venture's work on the contract covered, 1is regulation, the, any significant change in the information submitted, the joint venture must inform the RC'ther directly or.:trough the prime contractor if the joint venture is a subcontractor. AFFIDAVIT The undersigne-swear that the foregoing statements are correct and include all material information necessary to identify and explain the terms and operation of our joint venture and the intended participation by each joint venturer in the undertaking. Further, the undersigned covenants and agrees to provide to the RCTC current, complete and accurate information regarding actual joint venture work and the payment thereof and any proposed changes in any of the joint venture arrangements and to permit the audit and examination of the books, records and files of the joint venture, or those of each joint venturer relevant to the joint venture, by authorized representatives of RCTC or the RVPUBWFW1517541 B-2 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT B Federal funding agency. Any material misrepresentation will be grounds for terminating any contract which may be awarded and for initiating action under Federal or State laws concerning false statements. NAME OF FIRM NAME OF FIRM SIGNATURE SIGNATURE NAME TITLE DATE DA Date State of County of On this }� personally know Oxhibeing. properly authoi-i' .: s.k ' k e of his or her free act ai't • SEAL NOTA COMMISS7NEXPIRES :before ni li limp fi t"(Name) , to me did exee`fhe foregoing affidavit, and did state that he or she was to execute the affidavit and did so as da RVPUBUFW1517541 B-3 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT C FIRM NAME ADDRESS CERTIFICATION DETERMINATION CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE TELEPHONE OWNER I. DETERMINATION OF BUSINESS SIZE A. SUBCONTRACTS OF $10,000 OR LESS: 1. Is the subcontract $10,000 or less? 2. Does your firm have 500 or less t employees (including affiliates B. SUBCONTRACTS OVER $10,000 AND .FIMBCTS: 1. Construction nstructi :ss than 75% of the work fall the following categories? If yes, please indicate e category below. Plumbing, heating (except electric) and air conditioning Painting, paperhanging, and decorating Masonry, stone setting, & other stonework Floor laying and other floor work Roofing and sheet metal work Concrete Work Water well drilling Plastering, drywall acoustical, and insulating work Terrazzo, tile, marble and mosaic work Carpentering and flooring Installation or erection of buildings equipment Structural steel erection Glass and glazing work RV PU B1J FW1517 541 C-1 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT C RVPUBWFW1517541 Excavating and foundation work Wrecking and demolition work Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified 2) Is your firm's average annual receipts for the three preceding fiscal years less than $12 million? Yes No b. Special Trade Contractors 1) Does your firm fall into on of the following categories Yes No . If yes, indicate the category? Plumbing, heating (i:�tric) Painting, paperh.�gng i-ating Masonry, stone setting, & 'work :;,:< Floor layir er floor Zvi Roofing ti`] work Cone Work Wei- well cin Pl istering"rwall ac toal, and insulating work errazzQle, marbl>and mosaic work arpering and. Boring Insta..ali or.:<.• lion of buildings equipment Struilifig 'erection lasS4 g azing work xcavating and foundation work `decking and demolition work ecial trade contractors, not elsewhere classified :dour firm's average annual ,eipts for the three preceding fiscal years less than $5 million? Yes_ No_ Supp�10of Manufactured Goods oes your firm have 500 or less total employees (including affiliates)? Yes_ No_ C-2 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT C 3. Service Firms a. Does your firm fall into one of the following categories? Yes_ No_. If yes, are your average annual receipts for the three preceding fiscal years less than what is indicated for your type of firm? Engineering $7.5 Million Janitorial and custodial 4.5 Million Computer programming or data processing Computer Maintenance Protective Services Others not mentioned in 13 CFR 121.3-8(e) .0 Milli II. DETERMINATIONS OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIO VANTAGE A. SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE 1 Elements of Social Disadvanta�s The individual must meet € e followntg staff a. Does your t�vclual sopal disadva#age stem from color; national origin; gender; physical l cap; W -term rOdence in an environment isolated from the main re of Amerl soci ;Or other similar cause beyond your control? Yes If yes: < lain in full detail. demonstrate that you have personally suffered social disadvantages? If yes, please explain in detail. Was your individual social disadvantage rooted in treatment which you experienced in American society? Yes_ No_ If yes, explain in detail. d. Is your social disadvantage chronic, longstanding, and substantial? Yes_ No If yes, explain in detail. RVPUB\JFW\517541 C-3 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT C e. Did your social disadvantage have a negative affect on your entry into, and/or advancement in, the business world? Yes_ No If yes, explain in detail. 2. Evidence of Social Disadvantage a. Education 1) Have you been denied al curricula, exclusion from 9 teachers, educational hone;::;' has discouraged you from Yes_ No_ If yes, explOtin b. Employment ..k. acceskikb busin6 oawi a1 schools, 'ofessional assi t. with students and other social patieits• of pressure which rofessional or business education? Have you been, denied or dEcrimina 'against in hiring, promotions, other aspects of professio lailvancqt.knt, in pa 'fringe benefits, other terms and conditions of employmoki6taliatq ehaviop• an employer, other social patterns or pressures that have€ ianneled; nt_c o *professional or non -business fields? Yes_ No_ If ain in detat >t3;..been denied equal access to credit or capital, received credit under ale circumstances, discriminated against in receipt of government contracts, tntial clients, excluded from business or professional organizations or other similar factors which have hindered your individual business development? . res_ No_ If yes, explain in detail. RVPUBWFW\517541 C-4 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT D B. ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE 1. Do you believe that your firm is economically disadvantaged? Yes_ No_ If yes, please explain and provide information to substantiate your belief. DATE: CHALLENGE PROCURE The identity of third party complainant (challenger) shall remai fidrat, at his or her '11,: `pursuant to 49 erm C.F.R. Part 109 (b). However, where the challenge serves as a Ua€ ecertification detination, RCTC shall inform complainant that the confidentiality of his or her challenge ived• Challenged Firm: Firm Name Address City, State and Zip Code Telephone Owner( Challenging Party: Name Addr., State and Zip Cod' M1�A `ne k<'s' Basis for` Letter on File: Yes_ No_ Date filed with RCTC , 19 RVPUBWFW\517541 D-1 s/22/ss ATTACHMENT D Is there a reason to believe that the challenged party is, in fact, not socially and economically disadvantaged? Yes_ No_ If yes what is the basis for your belief? If RCTC determines that there is reason to believe that the clt likOr ty is not socially and economically disadvantaged, follow Steps 1 through 7, below. Steps: 1. Evaluation of information receive 2. Date both parties notified>r'writing< < , 199 3 D a-�� he aring, i �� 199 4. K<K 5. Lnif6 both part iditikt,of the final determination in writing: , 199_ 6.Was the final defifion appealed to DOT? Yes Unknown RVPUBIJFW1517541 D-2 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT E DECERTIFICATION PROCEDURE CHECKLIST (Steps To Be Taken Prior to Decertification) 1 Firm Name Address City, State and Zip Code Telephone Owner(s) 2. Notification of RCTC's concern regarding the firm's eligil) Date notified (in writing) Firm's Response A. In person B. Memorandum on File C. In Writing 4. Hearing Date Wtaihis firm decertifie Yes No the, . of Decision sent to the firm? DATE: RVPUBWFW1517541 E-1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM I POLICY STATEMENT The Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") is committed to encouraging Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ("DBE") involvement in all phases of RCTC's procurement activities, including, but not limited to, feed -price contracts, regular purchases of goods and services, and special government grant procurement to the maximum 'tit feasible. II DEFINITIONS "DBE" is defined as a small business that is owned and controlleck,„ one or more . individuals. "Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individual' means these t divi'd States (or lawfully admitted permanent residents) and who argApmen, Wits American Americans, Asian -Pacific Americans, or Asian -Indian Americah- i disadvantaged. Any otherwise eligible individual whose persona Dollars ($750,000) are excluded from obtaining a DBE status. •i5t`her minorities is greater than onomically ddvantaged e citiz:bf the United :, '—ericans, Native oritter:.! flwviduals found to be Sever hundred Fifty Thousand "Disadvantaged business" means a small business concern: (1) aCh is at ent owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, or, in the case of any.publicly owned`b11064,01gast 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more socially and economically disadv i • Wividuals; afatt#Ifiise management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more of the socilt''Ecally disadfaged individuals who own it. "Small • business concern" means a small business as delin#y Sectic#'#}all isiness Act. III PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The objectives of this program are to:.(;dentify a'certify DB`irms which are qualified to provide required goods, materials, supplies and/or services; (2) c top and i1> Oinent inforti tion and communication programs and procedures geared to acquaint prospective DBEs with:Kt:0 contract # [( rpolir ent procedures and requirements; (3) develop the necessary interdepartmsftl relationship TC whit'"'::''' ' ":* this program; and ..e• foster ilfacilitate i -' (4) contn econoln . `_., _" `;end growt In striving tc4# µ Fs in al? . . T-assisted projects under this Program, RCTC is committed, to the maximum extent feasible, t#ig.race neutiiC>as that term is defined in 49 CFR Part 26. Only after it makes a determination, on an annual basis a# o goal Ioi 1 anticipation in its DOT -assisted project cannot be reached through race neutral means shall`'t goals: IV LIAIS0105FFICER lkjuests for informatioler /Oassistance should be directed to Paul Blackwelder, RCTC's DBE Liaison Officer, or Naty phaver. The Liaison Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission RVPUBWFW1517541 F-1 6/22/99 ATTACHMENT G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STATEMENT OF PERSONAL NET WORTH as of A. Current Financial Assets 1. Cash 2. Savings Account balances 3. Accounts/Notes/ Rents Receivable 4. Retirement Accounts 5. Stocks/Bonds/Business or Partnerships (Exclude stocks/bonds held in applicant firm) 6. Life Insurance Policy 7. Total Current Financial Assets: B. Property/Other Assets: 8. Real Estat.9%, (Exclude**, 9. Automobile/w.:""r cles gory resit 10. Furniture/clot3::1., 11. CompolNiSoftware hom.q.pce equipment ate 12. Assets 13. roperty/Other „ (adsi rib 13) ssets: Applicant Name Signature D. Liabilities 1. Mortgage Loan(s) (Exclude mortgage on primary residence) 2. „Credit Car. .aktiVgco s) 3. Auto/WaterlAtttgrfif: gr Life I '''ance Loan d Taxes atigment Accounts l04:4 Net Worth suirie E from line C) ....... RVPUB\JFW \ 517392 G-1 The undersigned swear that the foregoing statements are correct and include all material information necessary for the determination of his or her personal net worth. Further, the undersigned covenants and agrees to provide to the RCTC current, complete and accurate information regarding his or her personal net worth, and any changes thereto. Any material misrepresentation will be grounds for terminating any contract which may be awarded and for initiating action under Federal or State laws concerning false statements. NAME OF FIRM SIGNATURE TITLE DATE Date State of County of On this day to me ' ersonall . `.> ::•'`.: P :1 ' she was ro } � t 'F v<v p p'`authonz'; and did sgl:etis or her free' ' SEAS;;;; NOT'; COMMISSION EXPIRES ire me appeared (Name) worn, did execute the foregoing affidavit, and did state that he or e of Firm) to execute the affidavit Bed. RVPUB\JFW\517392 G-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) 1. POLICY 1 A. Policy Statement 1 B. Program Objectives 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 3. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DBE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 3 A. Liaison Officer 3 B. Reconsideration Official 4 & :. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 4 A. Financial Institutions 4 B. DBE Directory 4 C. Over Concentration of DBEs 5 D. Business Development and Mentor-Protdgee Programs 5 5. DETERMINING, MEETING, AND COUNTING OVERALL ANNUAL I 4::, 6 A. Method 6 B. DBE Eligibility r. 6 C. Race Neutral Means 7 D. Contract Goals 7 E. Ensuring Good Faith Efforts 8 .i;];::' (1) Good Faith Efforts in ContrO Provisiow 8 (2) Bidders Failing to Achigiiiii)ie DBE is 9 F. Counting DBE Participation 1,:..,' 11 G. Program Monitoring 12 6. REQUIRED.. :C.W.TRA... CT PITS12 A. Saiiiiiant. :‘'iiofNon- ..-"gatiohn 12 -.rw,..-:-*z:K,sa..:t..i..: ,.,„,,,,,,,...„.....,zw:s , C. ' '''''..v. kkfmm.ni rroA----::::::: Le 10,414.4..s , 13 B. 13 D. AdmiagWviamedies . 14 E. DBE Nit* Vailionce 14 7. CERTIF14. 11011lNt:Ir. ,iCk161:07.'.:, 14 A. AOUrden of Proof 'ti..**p 14 B. .. ''" Definitions 15 , 8. j'IFICATION PROC4i1RES F. 17 Unified CertiflOn Program 17 Initial Certaigion Program 18 **J.1Aireffi Procedures 19 ''...IiNIII.::: .aation and Reapplication Procedures 19 s .:i§:i::31,:i.::;:y. ititiVal Procedures 20 DOT Review 21 9. Record Keeping, Monitoring and Enforcement 21 A. Bidders' List 21 B. Monitoring Payments to DBEs 22 C. Reporting Requirements 22 RVPUB\JFW1 517392 10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OUTREACH 22 A. Advertisement of Notice to Bidders 22 B. C. D. E F. G. H. Pre -bid Conference Outreach Techniques Information Services Distribution List for DBE Policy Statement DBE Mailing List - Media Contacts: Internal Distribution of Policy Statement: Riverside County Transportation Commission Staff: 23 23 23 24 24 25 25 11. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW 26 INFORMATION FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE STATUS INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING JOINT VENTURE ELIGIBILITY B-1 CERTIFICATION DETERMINATION<;;. "'' C-1 CHALLENGE PROCEDURE `''' •.'•:« .<: D-1 DECERTIFICATION PROCEDURE CHECKLIST .,,....,., „.,......,...,.. E-1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:€ DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE POGRAMF-1 I POLICY STATEMENT F-1 II DEFINITIONS Y' Y><< ``` F-1 III PROGRAM OBJECTIVES ... >; _ F-1 IV LIAISON OFFICER ':_:,::>` s Y' :<>?' F-1 STATEMENT OF PERSONAL NET WOtTI ?;: G-1 RVPUBWFW1517392 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 1999 - JUNE 30, 2000 Karo Enterprises Pamela V. Dowell Linda B. Wright RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 1999- JUNE 30, 2000 INTRODUCTION In accordance with 49 CFR Section 26.45, Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) has established an annual overall goal of 11.6 percent (11.6 %), subject to the approval of the Commission, for fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 for the participation of DBEs in all budgeted contracts utilizing DOT federal financial assistance. The methodology used for establishing the annual DBE goal is consistent with those identified in 49 CFR Section 26.45. The Commission's overall annual goal is an expressed percentage of the total amount of DOT funds the Commission anticipates expending during the fiscal year. The Commission's annual overall goal is reflective of the amount of ready, willing and able DBEs that are available to participate in contracting opportunities and is reflective of the amount of DBE participation the Commission would expect to achieve absent the effects of discrimination. The Commission intends to meet the annual overall goal, to the maximum extent feasible, through race -neutral measures as outlined further in this report. PROJECTION OF FEDERALLY FUNDED CONTRACT EXPENDITURES The Commission conducted a thorough analysis of the projected number, types of work and dollar amounts of contracting opportunities that will be funded, in whole or in part, by DOT federal financial assistance for fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000. The Commission's projected budget for federally funded contract expenditures is $7,496,000. Ofthis dollar amount, the projected contract/procurement opportunities are broken down into the following categories: Construction $5,741,000 Professional Services $1,755,000 Materials/Supplies/ Equipment $ 0 Other $ 0 Total $7,496,000 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BASE FIGURE In accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Section 26.45, the Commission has developed a base figure that expresses the availability of DBEs as a percentage of all contractors and subcontractors in the relevant contracting markets. The methodology the Commission followed was based on the guidelines listed as Alternative 2 of 49 CFR. Section 26.45. Available Businesses in the Commission's Relevant Contracting Markets An analysis of the Commission's relevant contracting markets revealed that the Commission solicits participation from contractors and subcontractors from the counties of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles as its primary source; with Orange and Ventura counties as secondary markets. The Commission has projected that during the July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 fiscal year $5,741,000 for construction will be contracted using federal funds. The Standard Industrial Codes (SIC) used to determine and define the available businesses in the geographical market areas, as mentioned above, are found in SIC 1600, Heavy Construction. Except Building and SIC 1620, Heavy Construction, Except Highway, and SIC 1700 Special Trade Contractors. An analysis of the US. Census Bureau, 1996 County Business Patterns for the five (5) counties, indicate a total of 1,279 of these firms represent the number of all firms with these SIC code designation. The Commission has also projected that during the July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 fiscal year $1,755,000 for engineering will be contracted using federal funds. The SIC code used to determine and define the available businesses in the geographical market areas, as mentioned above are found in SIC 8700 Engineering and Management Services. An analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 County Business Patterns for the five (5) counties, indicate a total of 16,416 of these firms represent the number of all firms with this SIC code designation. Available DBEs in the Commission's Relevant Contracting Markets The Commission conducted a similar analysis to determine the DBEs that are available to participate as contractors and subcontractors in the projected contracts for fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000. The same geographical boundaries that were used above, were also used to determine and define the available DBEs, along with the relative SIC codes. Since the Commission receives funds from Caltrans, the current practice is to accept DBEs with Caltrans certification. Therefore, the Caltrans certified directory was used as the primary source for the identification ofDBEs in the related SIC codes, Caltrans utilizes its own system of identification for DBEs called "Work Category Codes" (WCC). The Commission conducted a comparative analysis of these WCC codes for construction and found a total of 106 DBE firms in the following WCC codes: WCC, C67 - Sheet Metal WCC, C0655 - Structural Steel WCC, C9947 - Elevator WCC, C0686 - Electrical WCC, C0652 - Rebar WCC, V1793 - Glass/Glazing The Commission conducted a similar analysis to determine the DBEs that are available in the same contracting market areas for engineering in the projected contracts for fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000. Again, using Ca!trans' WCC code of C8700, Engineering Services, indicate a total of 574 ready and willing DBE firms with this designation. Adjustment of the Base Figure for Engineering A review of the types of engineering projects that the Commission will expend with federally assisted funds made it necessary to look at the total number of engineering firms for the five counties and break down the base figure into sub -categories of work to better define the number of total available firms in these areas ofwork. Therefore, further analysis of the specific types of available engineering services opportunities were identified. The total number of available engineering firms in these sub -categories equal to 4,595. The following is a list of these sub -categories: o Civil Engineering o Construction Engineering o Electrical Engineering o Environmental Engineering o Geotechnical Engineering o Mechanical Engineering o Traffic Engineering Calculation of Bate Figure The Commission compared the available DBEs in the relevant contracting markets for fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 to the available businesses in the relevant contracting markets for the same period to determine the base figure. EXAMPLE: Base Figure (574 DBEs in SIC 8711) (106 DBEs in SIC 1600,1620 [ .23 +.76 ] x 100- 4,595 CBPs in SIC 8711 1,279 CBPs in SIC 1600, 1620 PROJECTION OF PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL GOAL TO BE ACHIEVED THROUGH RACE NEUTRAL AND RACE CONSCIENCE MEASURES Based upon the type of federally funded contracting opportunities for fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000, the Commission proposes to utilize race -neutral measures in 50% of annual overall goal for fiscal year July I, 1999 - June 30, 2000. Race -neutral participation includes any time a DBE wins a prime contract through customary competitive procurement procedures or is awarded a subcontract on a prim contract where the prime does not consider the firm's DBE status in making an award. The remaining 50% will be achieved by establishing contract goals for particular projects that have subcontracting opportunities. Any over concentration of DBEs in a particular trade will be excluded from race -conscious contract goals. ADOPTION OF TOTAL OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL Upon approval of fiscal year July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 overall goal of 11.6% is adopted and approved by the Commission, unless otherwise directed, the Annual Goal Report will be submitted to FTA for approval to meet the September 1, 1999 deadline, and May 1 deadline in succeeding years. PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL In accordance with 49 CFR Section 26.45 (g), the Commission will publish the proposed annual goal in the following relevant market area newspapers: The Press Enterprise 3512 14th Siren Riverside, CA 92507 The Desert Sun 399 North "D"Street San Bernardino, CA 92410 Los Angeles Times 430 N. Vineyard Ave Ontario, CA 92503 The notice will include a statement that the methodology and proposed goal are available for inspection by the public for 30 days from the date of publication. The notice will also include a statement that the Commission will accept public comments to the proposed goal and methodology for a period of 45 days from the date of publication and provide instructions for the submission of comments. Upon receipt of public comments, a report will be prepared for the Executive Director analyzing the public comments. OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL ACHIEVEMENT The Commission is committed to achieve the annual goal for DBE participation through a combination of race -neutral measures and contract goals for particular contracts with subcontracting opportunities. Race -neutral methods will be utilized to the fullest possible extent feasible to achieve the annual overall goal of 11.6 %. The Commission will engage in the following race -neutral measures where appropriate: • Contract sizing • Provide technical assistance • Provide outreach and communications programs to DBEs • Provide business development activities • Distributing a DBE Directory and Bidder' s List(s) electronically and otherwise as requested RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Executive Committee Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Resolution No. 99-009, Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Its Personnel Rules and Regulations. The proposed language change amending the first paragraph of Section 6.3, Holiday Leave, of the Commission's Personnel Rules and Regulations will provide clarification to RCTC employees on the number hours covered in a designated holiday. The Executive Committee is scheduled to meet prior to the Commission to review the proposal. If the Committee makes any changes to the proposed language, the item will be pulled from the Consent Calendar agenda. The proposed language changes were reviewed and approved by Legal Counsel. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approved Resolution No. 99-009, Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Its Personnel Rules and Regulations. nk Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 99-009 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING ITS PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the Commission has previously adopted personnel rules and regulations establishing terms and conditions of employment with the Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to further define Section 6.3, Holiday Leave. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows: Section 1 : The first paragraph of Section 6.3, Holiday Leave, of the previously adopted personnel rules and regulations of the Commission will be amended to read as follows: "All regular employees of RCTC who are on the payroll the day before and day after a designated holiday shall be paid for said holiday. Full time employees shall receive eight (8) holiday pay hours for a holiday. Part time employees shall receive holiday pay on a pro-rata basis. Temporary, casual or seasonal employees do not receive holiday benefits. Section 2: This resolution shall take place immediately upon its adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 1999. Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements Attached is the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - General, Special Revenue, and Capital Projects Funds for the Nine Month Period Ending March 31, 1999 along with explanations for significant variances and other items of general interest. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Description REVENUES Sales Tax Revenues Measure A Other Sales Tax Revenues Fed State Local & Other Govern Interest Income Other Revenues TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salaries & Benefits General Legal Services Prof Services (Excludes Legal) Office Lease General Admin Expenses TOTAL ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries & Benefits General Legal Services Prof Services (Excludes Legal) General Projects Highway Engineering Highway Construction Highways ROW Special Studies Rail Engineering Rail Construction Rail ROW SCRRA Capital Contribution Commuter Assistance Regional Arterial Streets & Roads Special Transportion\Transit Project Maintenance Project Operations Project Towing STA Distributions TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Intergovern Distribution Capital Outlay TOTAL EXPENDITURES Other Financing Sources(Uses) Riverside County Transportation Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-3rd 9tr For Period Ending: 03/31/99 06/22/99 REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION 68,500,001.00 51,313,449.72 17,186,551.28 5,448,179.00 4,466,199.00 981,980.00 6,969,920.00 3,901,142.38 3,068,777.62 3,060,565.00 2,172,978.01 887,586.99 6,642,989.00 3,064,873.87 3,578,115.13 90,621,654.00 64,918,642.98 25,703,011.02 606,214.00 507,943.83 98,270.17 92,500.00 52,884.30 39,615.70 865,020.00 586,588.05 278,431.95 220,000.00 163,246.30 56,753.70 716,960.00 489,783.38 227,176.62 2,500,694.00 1,800,445.86 700,248.14 1,311,656.00 786,942.24 524,713.76 232,500.00 181,978.13 50,521.87 598,650.00 252,116.02 346,533.98 1,693,900.00 1,001,114.60 692,785.40 1,877,738.00 419,415.76 1,458,322.24 5,048,000.00 3,465,467.79 1,582,532.21 758,188.00 323,344.85 434,843.15 250,000.00 90,966.47 159,033.53 266,539.00 221,894.53 44,644.47 3,506,300.00 2,819,387.03 686,912.97 22,352.00 14,902.00 7,450.00 1,150,000.00 150,318.00 999,682.00 1,378,920.00 808,158.53 570,761.47 10,068,505.00 1,705,671.67 8,362,833.33 26,579,715.00 19,905,252.27 6,674,462.73 5,915,461.00 5,113,148.00 802,313.00 550,094.00 459,051.93 91,042.07 1,129,787.00 507,265.18 622,521.82 657,800.00 441,515.71 216,284.29 2,186,116.00 1,022,732.00 1,163,384.00 65,182,221.00 39,690,642.71 25,491,578.29 397,295.00 397,295.00 0.00 93,221.00 62,089.02 31,131.98 68,173,431.00 41,950,472.59 26,222,958.41 74.91 81.97 55.97 70.99 46.13 71.63 83.78 57.17 67.81 74.20 68.31 71.99 59.99 78.27 42.11 59.10 22.33 68.65 42.64 36.38 83.25 80.40 66.66 13.07 58.60 16.94 74.88 86.43 83.44 44.89 67.12 46.78 60.89 100.00 66.60 61.53 QTRAF £8'LOl (ZL'68£'698'9) LZ'Z£S'l85'76 00'001 00'0 SS'Z£81279'S6 8£'£l (ZL'68£'698'9) 60'6L ££'Z77'67£'9 00'0 70'l8 l0'L9l 00'0 ££'S88'L88'S (00'LSS'L97) 55'Z71.'ZLL'18 6661 'l£ 43JeW 33NV1V8 amu SS'Z£8'Z79'56 8661 'l Alnr 33NV1V8 ONn3 (82'00£'l90%) (00'069.0£6.D 19'0L7'620'72 00'£l618L£'0£ 00'0 L9'27L'6Ll'SZ 00'ZLZ'OSl'l 00'0 00'8Z9'190'l£ 00'SlL'889 NOlivvraln 33NV1V8 sivn13V i390na 1N33213d 9NINIVW3N 66/ZZ/90 66/l£/£0 :6utpu3 po!Jad Joj J40 pJ£-slvniov snsaan 139ana AVNIO uolssluuo3 uolieiJodsueJi Aiuno3 aplsJam s sasn 6uloueul; J0440 puy saJnilpuadx3(Japun).0n0 saomos 6uloueul; .0410 puy sanuanas 4o(A3ualol;ao)ssaox3 sasn saoJnos 6uloueul; .0440 leiol siso3 aouenssl aolAJas 1480 in0 sJa;sueJi 6ulieJed0 ul sJa;sueJi 6ulieJado uo lidp3saa (sasn)sa3Jnos Buloueuli Ja430 W 227'056'17 81'517'822 85'952'59£'2 W 157'955'1 00'2£2'220'1 99'195'022'2 LC 721'206'02 £f'Lf1'861'1 £9'£L2'957'9 53an1I0N3dX3 17101 20'680'29 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 87'252'L£ 75'9££'72 Aellno lelldel 00'562'26£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'562'16£ uot3ngldlsl0 urano6Jalu' 12'219'069'6£ 81'517'822 85'951'59£'2 W 157'955'1 00'2£2'220'1 98'185'022'2 12'721'206'02 W 661'720'1. 52'18£'02£'7 S10310ad/SWtla90ad 1tl101 00'2£2'220'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'2E2'220'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LL'515'177 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 12'515'177 00'0 81'592'205 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £0'£86'h22 51'282'28Z £6'150'657 00'0 61'181 00'0 00'0 00'0 £5'226'1 25'215'802 69'58£'872 00'871'£L1'5 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0£'81£'l 00'598'1£6 00'0 00'006'298'2 L2'252'506'61 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 79'219'££L'S 0'6£9'112'71 00'0 00'0 L9'129'502'1 00'0 00'0 69'626'782 00'0 86'172'026 00'0 00'0 00'0 £5'851'808 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 16'802'908 1£'O£8'1 l£'611 00'81£'051 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'81£'051 00'206'71 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'206'71 00'0 00'0 £0'28£'618'2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £0'28£'618'2 00'0 00'0 £5'768'122 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 01'1E9'01 00'0 £7'£92'811 27'996'06 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 19'892 56'800'02 16'889'02 58'77£'£2£ 76'082'02 00'0 16'£90'£52 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 62'297'597'£ 72'876'562 9£'109'12£'2 02'257'81.5 00'0 00'000'062 66'08£'6£ 00'0 00'62 92'517'60 05'581'29£ 5£'656'2£ 00'0 00'0 62'707'2 21'998'12 00'0 00'0 09'711'100'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 57'6£7'55 51'529'576 00'0 00'0 20'911'252 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 61'208'L7 68'071'97 '6'221'791 £1'826'181 00'0 89'710'11 00'0 00'0 00'0 76'1h5'1£1 08'££0'2 12'28£'L£ 72'276'982 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LS'£86'122 21'721'62 19'782'5£7 98'571'008'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 25'581'99 '£'092'711'1 8£'£82'687 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LL'051'22 22'££9'297 O£'972'£91 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 82'762'6 25'157 %1 50'885'985 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 61'278'91 99'512'695 Of'788'25 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 0'5On 28'829'15 0'06'205 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LO'£6L'L£ 28'052'927 96'279'816'79 78'719'99 ££'h05'£22'1 22'256'282 W922'922.1 85'0£2'210'71 06'650'6£7'07 62'522'220'1 16182£'0£5'9 28'£L8'h90'£ , 00'0 52'212'295 00'0 00'££8'26L'L 00'0 00'0 50'287'986 20'9££'8L£ 10'826'221'2 78'719'99 52'7£7'259 22'256'282 Lh'£6£'82 18'££2'692 LL'£L6'fL5 L7'28£'h8 7£'£50'091 8£'2h1'106'£ 00'0 0'158'8 00'0 00'0 00'0 8L'£61'055'£ 22'95£'9 05'0,e 5££ 00'661'997'7 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'661'997'7 22'677'fl£'15 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LL'967'87L'£L 56'256'711'9£ 00'0 00'000'052'1 1tl101 a3dtld 80I13na1SNO3 80113na1SN03 33Ntl1SISStl A1NnO0 A1NnO3 3AVS/dSi °Nni 98I818W03 1V1383WW03 A1Nno3 OVA3 1ISNtla1 Na31Stl3 8831S3M 1tl83839 A1NnO3 Na31S3M 8431S3M 31tl1S 66/22/90 66/1£/£0 :6u413u3 polrad Joi 66/L£/£ ONn3 A8 sltlnor 66/22/90 i8a10 uotssluwo3 uolle4JodsueJl Aluno3 aplsdams suoling1r3510 tl1S Bulnol 3oafoJd suol4erad0 438f0Jd apueualuleW 33afoJd llsueJAu013JadsueJl IsPadS speoa g s4aaJ3S lepaldtl leuotSaa aouelslssy Jalnwuo3 uomg.1.14uo3 lellde° vans MOH lies uo porwasuo0 Iles Bulraaul6u3 lies salpn4S IeloadS MOS sAen46lN uollomnsuo3 Aen46ls Bulraaul6u3 AeM46lN spafoJd Iedauag (legal sapnlox3) SO3IAJas 10rd sa3lnras le6al lerauag sll;sues g sal -isles S133P0ad/SWtla90ad NOI1tla1SINIWOtl 17101 sasuadx3 upmpy lerauag aseal a31;;0 (lefial sapnl3x3) s031AJas ;odd saopuas IeBal lerauag sal;aua8 g saldeleS NOI1tla1SINIWOtl S3an110N3dX3 S3nN3A3a 1tl101 senuanaa Jaya° swoop' 4saJaau' urano9 Ja430 g 1e301 04e3S psi senuanaa xei sales Jay30 tl adnseaW sanuanaa xei sales S3nN3A3a ualldposas L2'2£5'1.85'76 £h'2h9'£66'Z 1.h'92£'6SL'9£ 85'f9Z'SO£'8 £L'L90'858'2 L8'h6l'fhZ'£L SL'h9V OSL'h2 95'L££'8££'Z ZS'LZ£'££6'£ SS'Z£8'Zh9'S6 (82'00£'L90% ) LL'2hh'S59'£ L8'0£1'91L'6£ 69'L7L'L98'6 Zf'£LS'h09'2 1.2'Lth'698'2t £f'140'1.19'02 2L'£he65h'2 W'99Z'65P'£ (h£'008'L99) (9h'h09'956'Z) (1,1'78h'Z9S'I) Lh'h6h'£52 99'1LL'£L£ 28'2L£'6£5'£ 05'LL6'020 82'550'hL L9'0L7'620'72 00'0 LZ'Z55'ht8'l £0'586'£62 00'0 90'LL£'£Z6'S L£'Z9S'L66'51. 00'0 00'0 00'0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L9'2,e 6LL'SZ 00'0 1.2'ZSS'VL8'1, £0'586'£6Z 00'0 90'LL£'£Z6'S L£'65L'886'91. 00'5L0'651 00'0 00'ZLZ'0SL'l 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'L6L'166 00'SLO'6SL 00'0 1tl101 N3dVd NOI13nN1SN03 NOIlOnSISN03 33NV1SISSV A1NnO3 A1NnO3 31VS/dSl ONnA ONIN18W03 1VI3N3WW00 A1N(103 OVA3 lISNVNl NN31SV3 N431S3M 1VN3N39 A1NnO3 N OMA NN31S3M 31V1S 66/W90 d82110 66/W90 66/L£/£0=61,tpu3 poluad .ioi 66/1,£/£ ONnA A8 sit/m.3v uolss wuw3 uollelJodsueal Aluno3 aplsJenlN 9661 'L£ laqule3a0 3ONV1V8 ONnA POOL 'L Alnp 3ONV1V8 ONnA sas0 6uloueuld Aay30 putl sarnllpuadx3(Aapun)Jan0 sadAnos 6uloueuli Aayl0 PuV sanuanad p(Aouamon)ssamq sash saounos 6uloueuli Aa430 lelol slso3 aouenssl a3puas lga0 3n0 sAa;sueAi 61AlleAad0 ul sAa;sueal 6utleaad0 uolldposa0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending May 31, 1999. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Attachments £;o L a6ed %6'96 %6'96 %WOO % L'VZ %S'£S %8'Z8 °% " %£'bS %Vet; %b'66 %V'S9 %b'8S %8•66 L9L`L69'9$ LSL'L69'S$ Zx9'£801$' 90L'08 14 Z1717'6ZZ' l$ bL£'£L6'£$ 69L`091N$ L9 L'9 79.9$ 9LL`6'£9`6$ 9Z 1°6E9'69 La'LLL$ LL9'LL L$ 898`6£Z$' 8be'LL 1$ OZO`Z9$ OS °I VAS %b'L9 669119n 9406 6SL' L8$ %Effie Ob8'9L L$ 0$ .86`06S'- 186'06$ LBW L$` L66'L$ %0'OO l %0'S6 x0'001 %0'00 L %0'00L %WOW, %0•001 %LW %LC£6 %0'00 L SZVOL$'9$ POS`BZIt'$$ ELl`8L8`S$ VOS`9ZL`9$ pG&'ii8'L$ SAW4:8L'8$ 16Z'817L$ 0517'££8$ 000'00£'Z$ 000'00£'Z$ £80'96L17$ 805'8170.9$ 606.'etelli$$00C6'914 606'££6'91$ 09£`969`6$ 09£'969'6$ 006`809`9$ 006'80S'9$ 0[9`99E9 £ LS'b0£$ LS L'Z9$ 606'££6'9 L$ 09£`969`69 09£'969'6$ 006`809` 9 006.809.9$ L9L`L8£$ 000'SZ£$ LS L'Z9$ 9I8-I 11a010.1$ (9106 '8006021) 'uomitu3/6J6u3 tieulwlla�d S103f021d 9LS-I 16aLnON ` Vibians (££66 '917860N) 6wdeospuel IlennpunoS (S£S602!) dweb >IooH Stroud *mg uaang uen (8686 ' 1986'Lb86'LZ86'L££6 ' lO1.60N) uollorulsuoo pue u6psep pempunos 9103f021d 1.6 31f1021 4L 3.I.ncm ittioitins LS86' LS86-6486'£ 7L6'S£96 (8£S6'L£S6'0£96'SZS6'£Z96'17£Z6.LZZ6 '61Z6021) S133f021d ILL 3111021 >6131n0217vib38ns •suolloadsul leluewuo/Ne 6up6-uo 6wwnoped luellnsuoo pue wise; lno -esop pefad 6upuoped •appwo0 sl poafad (L£L6'6Z£6 'S£L6'L££6'90£6 'ZO£6' l0£6' L L 160N) M08f uonnu 3/6upeaul6u3 S103f021d 6L 31n021 ►131110211111018nS (9966'VS66 L££6021) MObiuonnu3/6upeaul6u3 6103f021e1 VL 31n021 09 31f10Z11V1O19nS (Z£86'8Z66021) ualomsuoa 101 aP121 ,u, >lied (8£L6021) u6lsea lewd lol apla ,u,>lied S103f021d 09 31f1021 31)10 Ol S1NVV11VVIO0 31V0 Ol 6661 'lc Aew NOI1V0011V 31V0 Ol N011V0011V NOIldl IOS34 1SNIVOV 31V0-01 SM1 1110N3dX3 030N3 NINON `H1f1V 1SNIVOV S1N3VV11VVVV00 03ZINOH1f1V 103rO dd 8321f1110N3dX3 % NOd 3af1110N3dX3 03111N►N00 % 1 AIM.0VNIN00 NOISSIWN00 31n02i AEI 1210d32113Jans 6103f021d 11V21/A`VMHOIH ..V.. 32111Stl3IN 31311 £ 10 Z abed %all %via %L'b8 %0'001 %two %L'S6 %8.Z6 %WU %80L %619 %L'66 L08'11Z't►1$ L98'9C918 £46'880'L$ b 10'8bS' L$ 919`Z1►6`Z$ 9 1.9'Zb6'Z$ 809`LLb$ 80S'LLb$ LSL'SC0'14 L81'£EO' 1$ 901`8C9`l b LZ'L9Z$ 168'0LE'1$ LZ0'089S ' OCL'L8$ 0£0'99$ OOL' L$ %r96 %°18 %0'001 0°9'81)0 %0'00E OOS'80Z$ 9Z0"901$ 9Z0'SO 1$ 691`Z£5 £Z8'6Z$ 9bE'Z$ %0'001 %O'001 %0'001 %0'L6. %0' L6 %£"L6 %6•98 %0'00 L 4£i'90C'B9$ 0081LE6'9$' 000'69£'8$ 009'817S' L$ 009'SbS' 3 a0Z'9L0`C$ 00Z"9L0'C$ 000`0914 000'OSb$ 899'9Sb'1$ LLS`189`L$ 000'b0£$ LL8'£8£' 1$ OOZ'SLO'£$ 000`0814 000'OSb$ 000`0091$ 000'009'1$ LL8`£CL`t$ 000'OS£$ LL em' L$ 8111101 1N21 1131nW'INOO 111!1.018113 (£966'LS66'£S66'Sb96'E486'9£96'0i66'00000N) S;S00 .;weynysiso0 dpiboy einiuoms (996617986'bb86'££86'Z£86' 1EL6'0Zb6 ON) 6upeauPu3/sa1Pn;S 11V212131n W WOO 3a12!'N' 121Vd ivi018ns (EL86) (S1,66-1066) 6986 (ZbL6-04L6021) WV210021d '1N3ONI/38121-N-H21dd 'SOAS'& NVld INVHD 121d Wit/18M (LZL6ON -Id S11) APnIS IePadS 839IA213S V Nf/ld 1NV210021d laimo3a ivioians. (0066 ON) 'A213811NJW 111SNO0 1031s021d 3ON`dH3101N11di01888 (91766'9Z660N) 6uldeospuel 01 ewnA (8Z176021) (3'8Sd) u61sa01eu1d 01 ewnA INV110021d 'A021dW1 39NVH02131NI 31V0 Ol S1N0111WW00 31V0 Ol 6661. ' LE AM N011V3011V 31V0 Ol N011V3OTIV 1SNIVOV 31V0-01 Sal(1110N3dX3 030N3 H1NOW 'Hl(1V 1SNIVJV S1N31N1101141OO ' 03ZINOH1f1V S32U1110N3dX3 % NOd 3a(1110N3dX3 031111W/03 % 1V21111OVN1N0O NOISSIMOO 3111021 A81210d32I noone S1O3f0Nd A`dMHJIH .V. 321nS1131N 01021 NOIldINOS30 1031.Odd £ Jo £ aged 66/lEs /o se mini -s}a6pnq .1eaA leosg of pomp.' }ou pue pei;uooperoad 1e101.10j aae senlen Ily sweAoad;ueLuenaldull e6ueyoJa}ul;sule6e ueo-1 (0 :310N 96111 %919 0s 0$ tonsolL$ 8L6'0L8' l$ 9£9'90£`LL9:', L90'6£ t'Z$ OS' 9£9`90£`LIS L90'6E l'Z$ S1V101 suudwl peon pue wails pool S on ewnA 00210N d0 A113 %S19 O$ L69'9907$ LZ01760'9$ LZO'b60'9$ sluawanadwl pea %. spoils pool V111O3W31 d0 A110 %919 0$ 009'99 t' t$ 009'17ZE' l$ OOS'ne' t$ stuawanadwi pea g staaits pool 01N131/C NVS d0 A110 %919 0$ LZL'E69' l$ 6 tb'9E6' t$ 6 Lb'9E6' l$ stuawanadwl pea »g staaAs pool S121113d d0 A110 %L.'LL OS 580`640lS £Y.9`ZI.Z`BS 0$' £Z9' LZ`9S VN021OO AO A.110 iV101sns einpnits a6eupp wools %L`LL 0$ $96'67014 EZ9'Z LZ'S$ EZ9'Z Leg$ (l) 2 sa6ueyaatui upoun 2 eideyy 'Lipws VN02100 d0 A110 %17-£8 OS £89`i:££`LS 0 000'00olt OS' 000`009`tS NV01 311V1NOANVO 1V1o18AS %b.£9 0$ £89'ti££' l$ 000'009' l$ 000'009' L$ (7b60d) stuawanadwi pli uoke0 peomea 311V1 NOANVO d0 A113 °11041N00 03n021ddV 1N31111WW00 30NV1V9 S30NVAOV 6661. 'LE AMA! 1NMALLIM00 NOIldINOS30 1SNIVOV 31V0-01 ONIONV1S1n0 NV01 -V„ 321nSV301 03ON3 H1NOW 03n021ddV 103rOdd 30NYWEI NV01 °% ONIONV1S1110 1V101 210d 3M11110N3dX3 103f021d A81210d3211300f18 S1031021d SOV021 V 9133211S 1V001/AVMH0111 „v.. 321f1SV3W 01321 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for RCTC/SANBAG Shared State and Federal Advocates Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC, December 1998) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG, March 1999) approved extending until October 31, 1999 their existing contracts with their respective Federal advocates (Cliff Madison, Inc. for RCTC and David Turch and Associates for SANBAG). The contracts for each agency's State advocate (Smith and Kempton represent both RCTC and SANBAG) were also extended until September 30, 1999. Part of the approval for these extensions included direction to staff to review the value of engaging one firm to represent both RCTC and SANBAG in Sacramento and the same for advocacy services in Washington, D.C. This concept dovetails the creation of the RCTC/SANBAG Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, which to date, has proven to be a positive action for agencies. One of the challenges associated with the shared position is the management of the State and Federal advocate contracts. While both RCTC and SANBAG are represented in Sacramento by the same firm (Smith and Kempton), that is not the case for the advocates in Washington, D.C. While each agency is represented at a highly competent level, this difference requires the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs to spend a substantially greater amount of time communicating with each agency's respective advocate than normally would be the case. The result is a loss in efficiency and some minor costs could be avoided if the agencies had the same advocate in Washington, D.C. While having two advocates in Washington, D.C. does present certain challenges, they are not without benefits. Each firm has its own special relationships and contacts that are useful to both agencies. Thus, the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs is able to benefit from this information much in the same manner mentioned above relative to extensive contacts in each county. To realize the benefits associated with the share Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, staff is recommending the immediate release of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for shared State advocacy services and shared Federal advocacy services. This is consistent with past Commission direction to staff to seek proposals for all contracts upon their expiration. Staff does not anticipate any major'conflicts relative to Federal Appropriations requests and believes any potential differences in requests would be minor and easily resolved by the selected advocate in their development of an appropriations request strategy. Attached for review is a scope of work that will accompany each RFP. Currently, RCTC and SANBAG together spend a total of $104,000 for State advocacy services and $85,000 for Federal advocacy services. Through these shared contacts, some savings in travel expenses may be realized. Should both the RCTC and SANBAG boards approve this approach, staff is suggesting the following procedure: staff will put together a review committee composed of government affairs staff from Southern California transportation agencies. The staff review committee would forward a short-list (2-3) firms to a joint RCTC/SANBAG committee composed of three members of each board (appointed by the RCTC Chairman and SANBAG President respectively) for interview and ultimate selection. This item is budgeted in the SANBAG Fiscal Year 1999/2000. As currently is the case, RCTC will be invoiced for half the costs associated with these contracts. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the immediate release of two Requests for Proposal (RFP): one for Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments shared State advocacy services and another for Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments shared Federal advocacy services. Scope of Services Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments State Advocacy Services Overall Goal Successfully achieve the intended results of the Riverside County Transportation Commission /San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) State Legislative Program. Continue to establish and maintain positive working relationships with the Riverside County and San Bernardino County State Legislative delegation and members of the gubernatorial administration. Required Tasks/Activities Tasks will include, but not be limited to the following: Routinely communicate with delegation members, and members of related Assembly or Senate Committees on legislation sponsored by RCTC and legislative positions adopted in response to specific legislative or budget proposals. This will occur through both written and oral communication. Provide information, copies of introduced legislation, relevant testimony and any analysis of legislation relative to RCTC/SANBAG. Coordination of advocacy efforts which may include testimony by the selected firm's representatives, and/or RCTC/SANBAG Board member and/or staff. Advise and assist RCTC/SANBAG in developing strategy on legislation, regulations and actions contemplated at any government level. Assist with the development, attendance and programming of a Legislative Staff Tour/Luncheon for delegation member staff to be held in both Sacramento and/or Riverside and San Bernardino County. Provide a written monthly update to the RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors which summarizes the firm's most recent efforts on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG, including but not limited to: testimony before committee, individual meetings with Legislators, and written correspondence on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG. This report shall also contain any relevant information regarding the Legislature's activities/progress on moving legislation, adopting a budget, and general activities or action of State government that could impact RCTC/SANBAG's interests. Provide oral reports to the RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors which offer insight into the activities of the Legislature as they relate to the RCTC/SANBAG Legislative Program. The dates of these visits will be determined at a later date, based upon the Legislative Session Calendar. Scope of Services Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments Federal Advocacy Services Overall Goal Successfully achieve the intended results of the Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) Federal Legislative Program. Continue to establish and maintain positive working relationships with the Riverside and San Bernardino County Federal and Legislative delegation. Required Tasks/Activities Tasks will include, but not be limited to the following: Routinely communicate with delegation members, and members of related House or Senate Committees on legislation sponsored by RCTC/SANBAG and legislative positions adopted in response to specific legislative or budget proposals. This will occur through both written and oral communication. Provide information, copies of introduced legislation, relevant testimony and any analysis of legislation relative to RCTC/SANBAG. Coordination of advocacy efforts which may include testimony by the selected firm's representatives, and/or RCTC/SANBAG Board member and/or staff. Advise and assist RCTC/SANBAG in developing strategy on legislation, regulations and actions contemplated at any government level. Assist with the development, attendance, and programming of a Legislative Staff Tour/Luncheon for delegation member staff to be held in Riverside County and/or San Bernardino County. Provide a written monthly update to the RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors which summarizes the firm's most recent efforts on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG, 'including but not limited to: testimony before committee, individual meetings with Legislators, and written correspondence on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG. This report shall also contain any relevant information regarding the Legislature's activities/progress on moving legislation, adopting a budget, and general activities or action of Federal government that could impact RCTC/SANBAG's interests. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Schedule of Recurring Consultants To streamline the processing of contracts, the Commission has annually reviewed and approved a listing of contracts which are routine and renewable from year to year (in most cases up to a maximum of five years). That process was suspended the past year as the Commission completed reviewing all contracts to determine when and if to hold a competitive process. That review has been completed and most contracts have either been re bid, are in process, or will be initiated based on the timetable established by the Commission. Staff is now reviving the Schedule of Recurring Contracts (renamed the Schedule of Recurring Consultants) for routine contracts and consulting services regularly used by the Commission on an annual basis. All contracts are subject to legal review by general counsel, fiscal impact review by the Chief Financial Officer, and approval of the Chair and the Executive Director. Any consultants which are still pending an RFP process are so noted. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Schedule of Recurring Consultants for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1999 and ending June 30, 2000. Consultant Name Bechtel Best, Best, & Krieger Charles Bell/Boyea Capital Markets Cis Leroy Ernst & Young Geographics Inland Transportation Services O'Melveny & Meyers Public Financial Management (PFM) Schiermeyer Consulting Services Teletran Tek Services Valley Research & Planning Riverside County Tranpsortation Commission Schedule of Recurring Consultants Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2000 Desciption of Services Program management General legal services Financial advisory services Planning services Audit and consulting services (2 Graphic design services (3 Commuter assistance Bond counsel Investment advisory services (1 Rail planning and studies Callbox system support Congestion mgmt. services Budget Budget Dollar Percent 6/30/99 6/30/00 Change Change 1,600,000 1,550,000 (50,000) -3.1% 325,000 355,000 30,000 9.2% 145,000 165,000 20,000 13.8% 35,000 35,000 0 0.0% 355,600 369,000 13,400 3.8% 360,000 225,000 (135,000) -37.5% 922,445 400,000 (522,445) -56.6% 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% 25,000 35,000 10,000 40.0% 110,000 120,000 10,000 9.1 % 44,650 62,924 18,274 40.9% 80,000 80,000 0 0.096 4,012,695 3,406,924 (605,771) -15.1% Note: All of the above amounts are included in the approved FY2000 Budget. (1). Rail consulting services will be reviewed by the Commission during the 2000 fiscal year for possible issuance of an RFP based on the instructions of the Recurring Contract Ad Hoc Committee. (2). To cover work to be Inititated through September 30, 1999. A new contract will be brought to the Commission for approval once the RFP process is complete and a consultant selected. (3) To cover work to performed through December 31, 1999. A new contract will be brought to the Commission for approval once the RFP process is complete and a consultant selected. The indicated amount is exclusive of work done for SANBAG. The SANBAG contract amount was previously approved by the Commission. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2000 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects Annually, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) distributes federal operating and capital block grant funds to urbanized areas through its Section 5307 Program (formerly known as Section 9). There are four urbanized areas in Riverside County: Western Riverside County; Hemet; Palm Springs; and Indio/Coachella. In order for grants from these funds to be approved, the Commission must develop a Program of Projects for each area, hold a public hearing on the programs, and approve the programs. Program of Projects for the four areas in Riverside County have been developed using the FY 1998-99 area apportionments. The actual apportionments will not be known until later this calendar year when final appropriations are made by Congress. The Programs have been developed at the highest anticipated amount to allow the operators to proceed with filing their grant applications and to avoid delays, program amendments and additional paperwork if the actual apportionments are in fact lower than estimated. The proposed Programs of Projects contain projects taken from the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for FY 2000-2006 and were developed in cooperation with the eligible public transit operators. The balances available will be carried over to next fiscal year. As required, a notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper ten days prior to this meeting and private transit operators have been provided a copy of each program, advised of the hearing and encouraged to comment on the programs. PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the proposed FY 2000 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County. PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 1999/00 URBANIZED AREA: HEMET APPORTIONMENT $814,596 CARRYOVER FUNDS: $74,492 TRANSFER FUNDS: $0 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $889,088 RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY $889,088 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATE AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT (1) RTA Capitalized Purchased Transp. $26,162,000 $889,088 C STATE JULY 1, 1999 TO.JUNE 30, 2000 TOTAL PROGRAMMED $26,162,000 $889,088 BALANCE AVAILABLE $0' APPROVED BY RCTC: URBANIZED AREA: BUS APPORTIONMENT: RAIL APPORTIONMENT: CARRYOVER FUNDS -BUS: CARRYOVER FUNDS -RAIL: TRANSFER FUNDS -BUS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -BUS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -RAIL: RECIPIENTS: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CITY OF CORONA CITY OF RIVERSIDE PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 1999/00 RIVERSIDE - SAN BERNARDINO $4,465,893 $3,785,814 $2,519,572 $11, 836,243 $b $6,985,465 $15,622, 057 (1) CITY OF CORONA -PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE (2) CITY OF RIVERSIDE - 3 REPLACEMENT VANS (3) RTA - 7 TRANSIT REPLACEMENT COACHES (4) RTA - 18 REPLACEMENT DAR VANS (5) RTA - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FOR TRANSIT COACHES (6) RTA - MAINTENANCE SPARE COMPONENTS (7) RTA-OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT (8) RTA - BUS STOP AMENITIES (9) RTA- OFFICE EQUIPMENT (10) RTA - 5 SERVICE SUPPORT VEHICLES (3R,2E) (11) RTA - 2 FLEX -FUEL SERVICE TRUCKS (E) (12) RTA - OFFICE ITS SOFTWARE INTEGRATION (13) RTA - FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL PROGRAMMED BALANCE AVAILABLE -BUS BALANCE AVAILABLE -RAIL Program Approved by RCTC: 7/14/99 SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS $4,658,000 $13,000 $124,000 TOTAL AMOUNT $510,400 $150, 000 $2,450,000 $1,290,000 $393,000 $170, 000 $40,000 $100, 000 $288,000 $100, 000 $80,000 $750, 000 $1,400,000 $5,571,400 FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT $13,000 C SCAG $124,000 C $1,930,000 C $1,032,000 C $314,000 C $136,000 $32,000 $80,000 $230,000 $80,000 $64,000 $600, 000 $160, 000 $4,795,000 $2,190,465 $15,622,057 SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG JR: 6/17/99 d: URBANIZED AREA: APPORTIONMENT: CARRYOVER FUNDS: TRANSFER FUNDS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: RECIPIENTS: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: (1) SUNLINE—Preventative Maintenance JULY 1, 1999 TO JUNE 30, 2000 (2) SUNLINE— Bus Replacement (3) SUNLINE— 6 Replace. Paratransit Veh. TOTAL PROGRAMMED BALANCE. AVAILABLE APPROVED BY RCTC: JR: 6/21/99 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 1999100 INDIO/COACHELLA $616,460 $980 $0 $617,440 SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS $617,440 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT. DESIGNATE AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT $12,455,000 $240,000 0/C $300,000 $262,000 C $330,000 $115,440 C $13,085,000 $617,440 $0 STATE STATE STATE PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 1999/00 URBANIZED AREA: PALM SPRINGS. APPORTIONMENT: $972.625 CARRYOVER FUNDS: $1,935 TRANSFER FUNDS: $0 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: 6974.56D RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY $974,560 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATE AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT (1) SUNLINE—OPERATING ASSISTANCE $12,455,000 $306,000 O STATE JULY 1, 1999 TO JUNE 30, 2000 (2) SUNLINE—LEASE/PURCHASE $650,000 $520,000 C STATE REPLACEMENT TRANSIT COACHES (3) SUNLINE— 6 Replace. Paratransit Veh. $330,000 $148,560 C STATE TOTAL PROGRAMMED $1.3,435,000 $974,560 BALANCE AVAILABLE $0 APPROVED BY RCTC: JR: 6/21/99 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14,1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Temporary Construction Easement Interests in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, More Particularly Described as Apns 233-130-020, 233-130-007, 233,140-004 And 233-140-005, by Eminent Domain For The Construction of Sound Wall #98, And Related Public Infrastructure, Along State Route 91, Between Jackson And Monroe Streets, in Riverside, California PURPOSE Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-006, authorizing the acquisition of temporary construction easements, by eminent domain, generally described in Exhibit "A", for a Measure "A" project to construct Sound Wall #98, located along the South Side of Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside. The County of Riverside Real Property Department is acting as right-of-way acquisition agent for the Commission in this acquisition. Approximately 24 temporary construction easements are required for the project. Right-of-way acquisition agents for the County have successfully negotiated fees to acquire temporary construction easements for approximately 19 of the 24 required. It may be necessary to acquire some or all of the remaining 5 temporary construction easements described in Exhibit "A" by eminent domain. The initiation of the eminent domain process is the adoption of a resolution of necessity. Prior to adopting a resolution of necessity, the Commission must give each person whose property is to be acquired, and whose name and address appears on the last equalized County Tax Assessor's roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on: (1) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (2) whether the proposed project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (3) whether the acquisition of the temporary construction easements are necessary for the project; (4) whether the required offers to acquire the temporary construction easements have been made. Note: The value of the property is not an issue at the hearing. The notice must be mailed by first class mail and state the intent of the Commission to consider the adoption of the resolution, the right of each person to appear and be heard on these issues, and that the failure to file a written request to appear will result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission must then hold a hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date the notice was mailed may appear and be heard. The required notice was mailed to the property owners, identified in Exhibit "A", on June 10, 1999. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION During the design of the Rt 91, Magnolia to Mary, HOV median widening project, there was a difference in philosophy between the City of Riverside and Caltrans concerning the location, height, and esthetics of the sound walls to be built. There was no disagreement on the need for the sound walls. The Noise Barrier Analysis performed for the project in March of 1992 indicated that the existing noise levels within the project limits either met or exceeded the accepted noise limits at that time and that there were virtually no noise barriers within the project limits. In an effort not to delay the construction of the roadway improvements until this sound wall issue was resolved, Caltrans, the City of Riverside, and RCTC mutually agreed to proceed with the roadway improvements separately and delay the construction of the sound walls to a latter date. The construction of the Rt 91, Magnolia to Mary, HOV median widening project was complete and open to traffic in the Spring of 1995. In April and May of 1996, the City of Riverside, Caltrans and RCTC mutually agreed on the location, height, esthetics, and the phasing of construction for the sound walls to be built. The following Table lists the Sound Wall, its location, height, construction phase and current status: Wall # General Location Height Phase Status 35 N Side -- Tyler to Van Buren 12' I Constructed 77 N Side -- Van Buren to Jackson 10' I Constructed 78 S Side -- Van Buren to Jackson 10' I Constructed 149 N Side -- Adams to Jefferson 12' I Constructed 183A, B & C N Side -- Madison to Jefferson 10' I Constructed 221 A & B N Side -- Madison to Mary 14' I Constructed 98 S Side - Jackson to Monroe 10' II Advertised 110 S Side - Jackson to Monroe 12' II In Design 121 N Side - Monroe to Adams 10' II In Design 161 N Side - Adams to Jefferson 14' II In Design 635 N. Side - La Sierra to Magnolia 12' II In Design Sound Wall #98 will be constructed with the far edge of the sound wall foundation located adjacent to the Ca!trans right-of-way line. This will necessitate the acquisition of twenty four (24) Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's) to allow for construction activities such as: clearing the construction area of vegetation, erection of temporary fencing, removal of the existing access control fences, and construction of the new sound wall. The TCE's are situated along the back or side of each of the properties that are along and adjacent to the project. The easements are a rectangular strip of property, 1 meter in width. The TCE's are contained in an alley. The alley is at the back of each of the properties and runs the full length of the project. The property owners will be given a 30 day written notice by the contractor prior to start of construction. The Temporary Construction Easements will be obtained for a period of one (1) year starting on the 31 st day after the contractor's written notice. At this time there are approximately five (5) temporary construction easements that have not been obtained for various reasons. Construction cannot begin until all of the temporary construction easements have been obtained. DISCUSSION The following addresses the four findings that are required for adoption of the resolution of necessity: (1) THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted noise abatement criteria for highway construction projects. The criteria are based on the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) in the peak noise hour of the day. The FHWA has set 67 dBA LEQ as the noise level that is acceptable on the exterior of a residence adjacent to a highway facility. All new highway projects must study the potential of increased noise that may occur due to the construction of the new highway facility. This study must include present and projected noise levels that would occur with and without the construction of the new highway facility. Any future noise levels that exceed 67 dBA LEQ must be mitigated. The mitigation usually requires the construction of a sound wall that would reduce the future noise levels to within the acceptable FHWA stated limits. The Noise Barrier Analysis performed for the Route 91, Magnolia to Mary Project, in March of 1992, indicates that the existing noise levels within the project limits either met or exceeded the accepted noise limits at that time, the future noise levels, with and without the project, far exceeded the accepted noise limits, and that there were virtually no noise barriers within the project limits. The construction of Sound Wall #98 is required to reduce the present noise levels and the projected future noise levels to an acceptable level. 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 The design of Sound Wall #98 has been done in such a manner to obtain a balance between maximizing the noise abatement potential of the sound wall while minimizing the potential visual and aesthetic impacts to the adjacent property owners. The placement, height, shape, color, and contour of Sound Wall #98 was studied and the final design of Sound Wall #98 was mutually agreed upon by Caltrans, RCTC, and the City of Riverside. The project has been planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. (3) THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT Sound Wall #98 is to be constructed with the far edge of the sound wall foundation on the property right-of-way line necessitating the need for the temporary construction easements. The temporary construction easements will allow for construction activities to clear the construction area of vegetation, erect temporary fencing, and construct the new sound wall. Without the temporary construction easements it would not be feasible to construct the new sound wall. The temporary construction easements are required for the project. (4) THE OFFERS OF JUST COMPENSATION HAS BEEN MADE Government Code Section 7267.2 requires that an offer of the fair market value of the temporary construction easement to be acquired be made to the owner. Appraisals were prepared on our behalf, and offers of the fair market value were made to the individual property owners. None of the remaining 5 property owners have accepted the offer to date. The adoption of the resolution of necessity does not preclude continuing negotiations with the property owners. Financial Assessment Project Cost $60,000 (Total cost for acquisition of all 24 TCE's.) Source of Funds Measure "A" nai:4:iiik•••:.: <::.•: ••:. :::: :*. • - •:•:. iMinAM 4:ii.* . " ... .% MOVO:t.' ::::::::,. :::: :: ..: • • .V.`'. i:1:::t:t •Cw. , :. •-:,• :::: - :: .tn .:. •.v:}•... v.,i{v: * v�:v`:i:$$$$:{k %:•:::::.:t:::**it• z r..}:.}v.};: :*: . ::.$' '." :: :i...: :, :: 't t :i.i ...*»,.:**s ... . ' * ' ' '.:: Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Following the public hearing, make the necessary findings as stated above, and adopt Resolution No. 99-006, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring that the Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements in Certain Real Property by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Wall #98, located along the South side of State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside." EXHIBIT "A" ROUTE 91 SOUND WALL ##98 PROJECT REQUIRED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS That have not been obtained through negotiations PARCEL GRANTOR 1 17424-1 Daniel B. Felix Erolina Felix Sergio E. Juaregui 2 17428-1 Juan N. Feliz Macaria Felix 3 17430-1 Carlos Jimenez 4 17442-1 Jesus O. Tuazon Norma M. Tuazon 5 17443-1 Jesus O. Tuazon Norma M. Tuazon NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS Pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, you are hereby notified that at a regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., at the Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California, the Riverside County Transportation Commission intends to consider adopting a Resolution of Necessity authorizing the commencement of an eminent domain proceeding for the acquisition of a temporary construction easement in certain real property for public use which, according to the last equalized county assessment roll, is owned by you. The public use for which this interest is to be acquired is the construction of a sound wall along the 91 Freeway. The property to be acquired consists of a strip of land along your property's existing 91 Freeway frontage, outlined in the plat map attached as Exhibit "A" to this Notice. A hearing will be held at the time and place mentioned above. You have the right to appear and be heard on the following matters: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the project for which your property is sought to be acquired. 2. Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. 3. Whether your property is necessary for the proposed project. 4. Whether the offer required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code has been made. RVLn11CAR143033 1 Your failure to file a written request to appear and be heard within 15 days after the mailing of this notice will result in the waiver of your right to appear and be heard. ALL COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission 3 560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 DATE OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: DATED: June 10, 1999. RVL T\KAR\43033 Wednesday, July 14, 1999 9:00 a.m. Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207 Riverside, California BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By: 2 ark A. Easter Attorneys for Riverside Courhty Transportation Commission PROOF OF MAILING NOTICE I, Kimberly A. Reed, acting on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereby certify that on June 10, 1999, I mailed a copy of the attached notice by first- class mail to the following owner(s) of real property located in the County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel No. 233-130-020: Dated: June 10, 1999. Daniel Barrios Felix Erolinda Felix Sergio E. Jauregui 9089 Indiana Avenue Riverside, CA 92503 44 Kimb ► A. Ree RVLIT\KAR\43033 3 r- - �26�•00 AsPH 246 249 64.E i • � 72 2-J. 52. 87 252.82 SOUND WALL *98 eie 253. 79 o I ND I AQI4. AVENUE SPLi 253.64 `� _ 1. r7 r 1500 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT APN 233-130-020 NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS Pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, you are hereby notified that at a regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., at the Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California, the Riverside County Transportation Commission intends to consider adopting a Resolution of Necessity authorizing the commencement of an eminent domain proceeding for the acquisition of a temporary construction easement in certain real property for public use which, according to the last equalized county assessment roll, is owned by you. The public use for which this interest is to be acquired is the construction of a sound wall along the 91 Freeway. The property to be acquired consists of a strip of land along your property's existing 91 Freeway frontage, outlined in the plat map attached as Exhibit "A" to this Notice. A hearing will be held at the time and place mentioned above. You have the right to appear and be heard on the following matters: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the project for which your property is sought to be acquired. 2. Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. 3. Whether your property is necessary for the proposed project. 4. Whether the offer required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code has been made. RVLIT\ICAR\43033 1 Your failure to file a written request to appear and be heard within 15 days after the mailing of this notice will result in the waiver of your right to appear and be heard. ALL COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 DATE OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: DATED: June 10, 1999. RV LIT \KAR\43033 Wednesday, July 14, 1999 9:00 a.m. Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207 Riverside, California BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By: 2 ark A. Easter Attorneys for Riverside County Transportation Commission PROOF OF MAILING NOTICE I, Kimberly A. Reed, acting on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereby certify that on June 10, 1999, I mailed a copy of the attached notice by first- class mail to the following owner(s) of real property located in the County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel No. 233-130-005: Juan N. Felix Macaria Felix 3751 '/z Byron St. Corona, CA 91720 Dated: June 10, 1999. Kimb RVLMICAR143033 3 c A. Reed , • , 245. 98 CNC I ASPH . • 246 246. 89 249. 252.84 3a V) _.7" 52. 6 r 252. G 252. 05 psiIk me.i.a.'.1. r. 52. 5 f 0 m 2252..99 . • CONST. .ESA44—x- 26.:� m ! ASPH 252. tJ T I ND I Atih210/EI�tlE T- 7 ti 18500 L 2. 52 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT APN 233- 130.-005 NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS Pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, you are hereby notified that at a regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., at the Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California, the Riverside County Transportation Commission intends to consider adopting a Resolution of Necessity authorizing the commencement of an eminent domain proceeding for the acquisition of a temporary construction easement in certain real property for public use which, according to the last equalized county assessment roll, is owned by you. The public use for which this interest is to be acquired is the construction of a sound wall along the 91 Freeway. The property to be acquired consists of a strip of land along your property's existing 91 Freeway frontage, outlined in the plat map attached as Exhibit "A" to this Notice. A hearing will be held at the time and place mentioned above. You have the right to appear and be heard on the following matters: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the project for which your property is sought to be acquired. 2. Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. 3. Whether your property is necessary for the proposed project. 4. Whether the offer required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code has been made. RVLn1KAR143033 1 Your failure to file a written request to appear and be heard within 15 days after the mailing of this notice will result in the waiver of Your right to appear and be heard. ALL COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 DATE OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: DATED: June 10, 1999. RVLITIKAR143033 Wednesday, July 14, 1999 9:00 a.m. Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207 Riverside, California BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By: 2 MaR'c A. Easter Attorneys for Riverside County Transportation Commission PROOF OF MAILING NOTICE I, Kimberly A. Reed, acting on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereby certify that on June 10, 1999, I mailed a copy of the attached notice by first- class mail to the following owner(s) of real property located in the County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel No. 233-130-007: Carlos Jimenez 147 N. Merrill Corona, CA 91720 Dated: June 10, 1999. Kimberly A. Reed RVLITVCAR143033 3 i ASPH 246, 23 ASP 246.6. 11500 246.89 uliaear TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT APN 233-130-007 NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS Pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, you are hereby notified that at a regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., at the Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California, the Riverside County Transportation Commission intends to consider adopting a Resolution of Necessity authorizing the commencement of an eminent domain proceeding for the acquisition of a temporary construction easement in certain real property for public use which, according to the last equalized county assessment roll, is owned by you. The public use for which this interest is to be acquired is the construction of a sound wall along the 91 Freeway. The property to be acquired consists of a strip of land along your property's existing 91 Freeway frontage, outlined in the plat map attached as Exhibit "A" to this Notice. A hearing will be held at the time and place mentioned above. You have the right to appear and be heard on the following matters: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the project for which your property is sought to be acquired. 2, Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. 3. Whether your property is necessary for the proposed project. 4. Whether the offer required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code has been made. RVLn'\KAR\43033 1 Your failure to file a written request to appear and be heard within 15 days after the mailing of this notice will result in the waiver of your right to appear and be heard. ALL COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 DATE OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: DATED: June 10, 1999. RVLITIKAR143033 Wednesday, July 14, 1999 9:00 a.m. Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207 Riverside, California BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By: 2 ark A. Easter Attorneys for Riverside County Transportation Commission PROOF OF MAILING NOTICE I, Kimberly A. Reed, acting on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereby certify that on June 10, 1999, I mailed a copy of the attached notice by first- class mail to the following owner(s) of real property located in the County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel No. 233-140-004 & 05: Jesus O. Tuazon Norma M. Tuazon 816 S. Verona Street Anaheim, CA 92804 Dated: June 10, 1999. RVLIT\KAR\43033 v r 265-F00 TESL _ 11500 247, -4 ",SFH 247. go 011Serehier TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT APN 233-140-004 - LuNL 2"65Nref0 — 24 7. —64 247.90 ASPH . 'Kr E TREES X I 11500 _ kY4Y'V —x, 2. kc2 T. 247.8 1 URSOreliter TEMPORARY CONSTRUCT ION EASEMENT APN 233- I 40-005 RESOLUTION NO. 99-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APNS 233-130-020, 233- 130-005, 233-130-007, 233-140-004 AND 233-140-005, BY EMINENT DOMAIN IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALL #98, AND RELATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, ALONG STATE ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON AND MONROE STREETS, IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") proposes to acquire temporary construction easement interests in certain real property, located in Riverside County, California, more particularly described as APNS 233-130- 020, 233-130-005, 233-130-007, 233-140-004 and 233-140-005, for purposes of the construction of Sound Wall #98, and related public infrastructure, along State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in Riverside, 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, July 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., at the Chancellor's Conference Room, University Village, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, 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 each person whose property is to be acquired by eminent domain 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. RVI,ITIKAR\517243 Section 2. Public Use. The public use for which the temporary construction easement interests are to be acquired is the construction of Sound Wall #98 and related public infrastructure, along State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in Riverside, California, pursuant to the authority granted to it by section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code. 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" are the plats of the real property to be acquired by the Commission, which describe the general location and extent of the property with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. following: Section 4. Findings. The Commission hereby finds and determines each of the (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 described in Exhibit "A" is necessary for the proposed project; and (d) The offers required by section 7267.2 of the California Government Code were made. Section 5. Use Not Unreasonably Interfering with Existing Public Use(s). Some or all of the temporary construction easement interests in the real property to be acquired are 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 real property 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 temporary construction easement interests in the real property to be acquired are 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 use(s) pursuant to section 1240.610 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Staff is further authorized to make such improvements to the temporary construction easement RVLI71KAR1517243 2 interests in real property being acquired 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 temporary construction easements in 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 descrip- tion of the real property that are deemed necessary for the conduct of the condemnation action or other proceedings or transaction required to acquire the subject real property. Counsel is further authorized to make such changes in the legal descriptions to acquire permanent easements in fee title if these easements had been for purposes of the offers of just compensation previously valued as if they were fee acquisitions. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of July, 1999. Councilman Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission RVLITIKAR'617243 3 EXHIBIT "A" ROUTE 91 SOUND WALL #98 PROJECT REQUIRED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS That have not been obtained through negotiations PARCEL GRANTOR 1 17424-1 Daniel B. Felix Erolina Felix Sergio E. Juaregui 2 17428-1 Juan N. Feliz Macaria Felix 3 17430-1 Carlos Jimenez 4 17442-1 Jesus O. Tuazon Norma M. Tuazon 5 17443-1 Jesus O. Tuazon Norma M. Tuazon C / �1♦ -- ASPH 245.48 245. 8i 746 249 l �• 64 r--- Ui0 • 83 }}-7V G 2. 3 �5z 2 iSOUND WALL*98 t r, I.0 152. 99 t m 252. 75 ASPH . CONST. E9.47 1 7424- 1 27k7 m2 �53. 7 1 t 500 253. 72 �. 0 I NQ I ANA. AVENUE X (7 2A SPH 5; URSOrelnor TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT APN 233-130-020 - i• 245, 98 CONC i ASPH 246, 246. 8'2 249. ?)=} a N L_ 252.84 2S2• 11111W5.11=k4.. II. -0 r I s• igimf �- .� 2. 6 ! 52. I0 m 252. 2 252, OS 22..99 . CONST. 17428-1 26.:fi m I I i i ND 1 �►2►vE Ems' 'T"• r i v 7 l is500 WISOminer TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT APN 233-130--005 52+00J - ASPH 246_23 ASP 246.6. 246.89 249. 94 251. 2, 4. �52• �S -x- i ASPH t 252• t 257 • �n T-c 2 • i ,17430-I i i rPID:J�VA • 11500 25 i ( i 3p T, 252. - - x- - - URSOrainer TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT APN 233-I30-007 LUM;., 26 5-F-00 C3tL ESL 247. 6a L - f. 1- ,--- DENSE TREES J ?co I t 500 �J 1�ND NANA SPH 24 7. 9 J ASPH 7. i I x a� Y J x �- UltSeelnor TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT APN 233-140-004 - LUNL - 247.-6-4 ASPH 247.90 ASPH D',_ ).<' 10 1,7 4 4 328/1 z 18500 V4y4,1J4E „__ -x, 247.8 2. 2. 7,0,z _ _ _ GIRSOreimor TEMPORARY CONSTRUCT ION EASEMENT APN 233-140-.005 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SR 71 /91 Improvement Study State Route 71 from Route 91 to the San Bernardino County Line had become a serious problem by 1995 due to 1) increasing traffic from the rapidly developing Chino and Chino Hills areas; 2) a high accident rate, which included a number of head on collisions; and 3) the beginning of construction to widen this two lane highway to six lanes from the San Bernardino County Line to State Route 60 funded by the San Bernardino County '/2 cent Local Sales Tax Program. The Riverside County Measure "A" Highway Program, approved one year prior to the San Bernardino County Measure "M" Highway Program, did not identify funding for the widening of SR 71 from the San Bernardino County Line to SR 91. In July, 1996, a State Route 71 /91 Coordination Team comprised of elected officials from RCTC and SANBAG was established along with a Technical Working Group of staff from RCTC, SANBAG, Caltrans, SCAG and Riverside County. The Coordination Team was charged with focusing short term improvements to solve the safety problems and identifying longer range improvements to increase capacity. Through the efforts of the Coordination Team, the California Transportation Commission, and Congressmen Jay Kim and Ken Calvert, interim improvements have been approved and funded. Using a combination of Caltrans SHOPP funding, California Transportation Commission approved Interregional Road Funding, and federal Demonstration Project Program, funded projects are underway to solve the immediate safety problems and add some new capacity. Those improvements include installing a median barrier, widening the highway from two to four lanes, and improving the ramp connection from SR 71 to SR 91. Through the efforts of Congressmen Kim and Calvert, federal Demonstration Project funds were secured which allowed the Coordination Team to hire the firm of HDR Engineering, Inc in 1996 to conduct a study which would a) identify the additional improvements to provide the increased capacity on both SR 71 and 91 that will be needed to accommodate the traffic demand resulting from continued development in the western portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties; and b) identify and evaluate the various methods available to the RCTC and SANBAG to fund those improvements in the future. Enclosed is a copy of the Executive Summary for the SR 71 /91 Improvement Study prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. Mr Eric Keen from HDR will present the alternatives and recommendations contained in the Final Report at the Committee meeting. A copy of the full report will be provided to Committee members upon request. Financial Assessment Project Cost N/A Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the SR 71 /91 Improvement Study Final Report. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Presentation of Coachella Valley Association of Governments' (CVAG) Transportation Project Prioritization Study The CVAG Executive Committee has now adopted the 1999 update of the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) for the Coachella Valley. These documents provide a listing of all the arterial roadway improvement projects in the Coachella Valley, ranked in order of priority from highest to lowest, and their estimated cost of construction, now in 1999 dollars. This is the second update of the TPPS; the last was done in 1993. These documents are a tool for the CVAG Executive Committee to use in determining how and when any transportation funds identified for Coachella Valley projects will be utilized. The documents are submitted to the Riverside County Transportation Commission as the strategic transportation planning guide for the Coachella Valley. Copies of the documents will be provided Commissioners wishing to have a copy at the meeting. Corky Larson, Executive Director of CVAG, will make a brief presentation to the Commission on their projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To accept, receive and file CVAG's Transportation Project Prioritization Study and Regional Cost Estimate. NK RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2000-2003 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program provides funds to support projects and programs in non -attainment and maintenance areas which reduce congestion and transportation -related emissions. Approximately $43,631,366 is expected to be available for programming in the South Coast Air Basin (Western Riverside County) for FY 2000-2003 with $14,821,239 available in the Salton Sea Air Basin (Coachella Valley). The Coachella Valley Association of Governments was directed to coordinate the programming of funds in their area and provide a list of recommended program allocations to RCTC for the Commission's consideration and approval. Attachment I presents CVAG's recommended program for PM 10 Control Measure Projects totaling $5,132,652. Staff recommends approval of the program list as presented. The balance of funds available, $9,270,415, is proposed to be programmed at a later date. CVAG has already scheduled a meeting with the local agencies to begin the process for developing a project list for the Commission's future consideration. In the Western County, a Call for Projects was released to obtain proposals for funds available in the South Coast Air Basin. A total of 41 projects from 17 agencies was received requesting $61,662,463 in CMAQ funds. As directed by the Commission, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was convened to evaluate all the proposals using the approved project selection criteria. In order to thoroughly evaluate the highly technical air quality calculations required by the Air Resources Board and Ca!trans, a single signature contract was signed with Ray Gorski, an air quality technical expert with years of experience serving the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee. Mr. Gorski analyzed the emission reductions of each proposed project and provided technical assistance to the TAC during their project evaluations. Attachment II presents the recommended funding list of 18 projects as developed by the Technical Advisory Committee. In order to fund as many projects as possible, the County agreed to phase their project on the Valley Way Entrance and Exit Ramp Project, reducing their CMAQ requirement for funds from $6.5 million to $3.5 million. The TAC determined that with a 6.4% reduction in the balance of the projects, leaving the other County projects whole, there should be sufficient funds to support a total of 18 projects from 13 different agencies in the Western County. The 6.4% reduction in CMAQ funding would be covered through an increase in local match or a slight modification to the project. Staff fully supports the TAC's proposed funding list as presented. For the Commission's reference, Attachment III presents the list of projects which are unable to be funded due to insufficient funds. Financial Assessment Project Cost $48,724,573 Source of Funds Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funds YY::Y't}Y't'tY't't't::Y't;:YYYY22Y22::YY,»:»:::,:.:..,»..:», :,:.<,,,.:.., .::..Y:.::.::.:.:: E:..:...:..:.... „\, :::a:.:.:,:..,:..:.::.,..:,,..,:,», »,,,k.,k •.} •u'tt•:•.YY;Y„Y,:,-:,, :;:`Y;:YY?:-YY'tYYYY,:::..,:, , ,Y•„•„•ti,t.,Y•., ., :.:.Yvv:.w:xxxv:xvv:.xiiYYv:.`.i}?YiY2Y..\,.,,;..:: M•:.n..,..Y,:'v: v`YYY L •\Y\,Mv uvv„ .. ::,.p:A,,: � :: ,a y;n; u,±k,uy:�4V.,,v,.:,v,. :...Y,,,�:: ... »o.:,. ,.z«z:.:. ..}.. �^eYx:. ..:.:...... »�k.rzza�l�.:�:[�ez ,,. Y ¢¢ ** YYY 2 � v.::.Y•:.Y::Y..:..:.....:::}.::}:::::`.Y`:�:Y`kYv:YY::YY::YYY,Y,,,:Y;,:.•>k•:k �<::x:::}:w:..., ;YY::.:.,,-..,:,::,•.,,,,}...«ttttttcE:•t:Yv.....Y..:Y::.:.::.., .:.::...,,:}..k2 v.,»:,..Y,:.},:Y,.Y»»::..::;::,;Y;;Y:,: , ,Y•.,,•h •., •.,»}:..}.,,:(,•.,,•.,,Y,,,•:.:•:.•.::,•.:,.,,:::::•.::.,:•.::,.,,.,,,.,; »:a„i,S,S�tkk.::::::a,,,, : ,.\;::k`}:k •}:•Y,.•Y'•YY}YYYYYY'.::�YY}Y":,.,:Y"•YYYYYYYY;::YYkY'•k'.-'k:G; jY>�}h k�`^>... 1C }" . Yv.:v.}v.:v.:,..v:.•.Y•:.vnv:.v.,,v.,v.,i,}i\}:\v.:vnv: .:Y;......... : : ,.x..Yz..: ....... ^.;h. _ ........ .:::. .::::.: ...>. . .. ...Y...:: .::� �..:;..:; ...,.. .,•:.y:.; `S:YY, x:.:}•.:}v :::}::::•.. ............:.....:...... Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed 2000-2003 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 2000-2003 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed list of projects for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds available in the South Coast and Salton Sea Air Basins and direct staff to include these projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. ATTACHMENT I COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CMAQ-TEA 21 FUNDS (Phase 4) PM 10 CONTROL MEASURE PROJECTS Status as of June 15, 1999 POST EVENT (001) is PE CHEMICAL STABILIZATION. (003) = CS PAVING (004) s P WINDBREAK (005) W JURISDICTION TYPE DESCRIPTION -, 1420.7 STATUS CATHEDRAL CITY PE Post Event Clean -Up $610,851 Allocation: B610,851- Projects Total: $610,851 COACHELLA PE Post Event Clean -Up S580 Allocation: $218,195 - Projects Total: $2111,195 P Pave Avenue 54 / Highway 111 intersection $74,490 W Windbreak (live) extension of Tyler Street $21,250 W Windbreak (live) Highway 111 / Avenue 48 to 500' north of Ave. 50, and Ave. 52 to Ave. 54 $121,875 DESERT HOT SPRINGS PE Post Event Clean -Up S28,791 Allocation $189,809 - Projects Total: $189,809 P Pave Western Avenue - grade and pave one quarter mile of unpaved road $80,509 P Pave Sunset Avenue - grade and pave one quarter mils of unpaved road -- $80,509 INDIAN WELLS W ' Windbreak (live) at the intersection of Cook Street and Highway 111, along south side of Highway 111 and the east side of Cook Street $15,000 Allocation: $148,386 - Projects Total: 8148.386 . CS Chemical Stabilization of several lots owned by the city along Highway 111 $10,000 P Pave unpaved shoulders on Miles Avenue at Washington Street end Warner Trail 8123,386 INDIO PE Post Event Clean -Up $15,750 Allocation: $558,830 - Projects Total: $558A30 CS Chemical Stabitiiation of median song Indio Blvd., from Jefferson Street to Monroe Street consists of installation of connecting pavements and planter curbs• . $543,080 LA QUINTA PE Post Event Clean -Up $30,000 Allocation: $318,217 - Projests Total: ¢318,117 P CS Pave northeast comer of unpaved shoulder on Adams Street to 830' North of Westward Ho and Westward Ho to 1275' East of Adams, includes Chemical Stabilization $112,872 . P W Pave unpaved shoulder on Avenue 54 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street, includes . 5280 LF. of Windbreak (fences) $175,345• PALM DESERT PE Post Event Clean -Up $73,000 Allocation B397,893 - Projects Total: $397.193 P ' CS Pave shoulder of Frank Sinatra Drive, Cook St to Gerald Ford Drive, and Chemical Stabilization for approxc 3500 LF. $192,500 JURISDICTION PRa 1YP DESCRIPTION PRO COST STATUS CS Chemical Stabilization of median island on Frank Sinatra Dr., Cook St. to Hollister Dr. approx. 6000 L.F. - involves removal of excess sand from unimproved median area and placement of a colorized decomposed granite material, integrated with stabilizer material $ WF CS Windbreak (fences) and Chemical Stabilization along Cook Street from Frank Sinatra Drive to Gerald Ford Drive for approx 3000 LF. $27,497 CS Chemical Stabilization and vegetation of a 20- acre vacant city owned parcel - Portola Avenue South of Frank Sinatra Drive $34,396 PALM SPRINGS PE Post Event Clean -Up ' $104,492 Allocation:;408,492 - Projects Total: ;408,492 P Pave shoulder of Indian Canyon Dr. west side from 100' s/o San Marco Way to San Rafael Dr $150,000 P Pave shoulder of Indian Canyon Drive west side from Rochelle Rd. to Racquet Club Rd., includes approx. 2300 SF of ROW purchase $40,000 P Pave shoulder of Vista Chino / Highway 111 south side from approx 300' west of Sunrise Way to 900' west of Sunrise Way - includes paving bus turnout $65,000 P Pave shoulder of Via Miraleste west side from. Francis Drive to 643' south of Francis Drive $49,000 RANCHO PE Post Event Clean-up $24,000 Allocation: $292,024 - Projects Total: $292,024 MIRAGE W CS Windbreak (fences) and Chemical Stabilization of Gerald Ford Drive between Bob Hope Drive and Monterey Avenue (north side only) $43,500 W CS Windbreak (fences) and Chemical Stabilization of Frank Sinatra Drive between Bob Hope Drive and city boundary (north side only) S51,500 W CS Windbreak (fences) and Chemical Stabilization of southwest comer of Monterey Avenue and • Dinah Shore Drive $36,100 • CS Chemical Stabilization Section 6 & Section 30 $142,924 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE Post Event Clean-up $50,000 Allocation: $512,169 - Projects Total: $512,169 P . Pave Avenue 20, from Indian Avenue to approx 1.5 miles easterly - paving a 26' wide segment of street $462,169 TOTAL -COST OF PROJECTS: 3,654,866 AL;LOCATION TOTAL,; <:.3 �4,1 ; . ,<. Regional Bus Tum-Out Stab/Paving 250,000 Regional 1-10 Soil Stabilization 100,000 Regional Street Sweeping 683,721 CVAG Administration (5%) 277,541 CVAG Direct Cost (3%) . 186,524 Sub Total of Others Listed Dkaedyr Above 1,477 756 i4 Updated: Juno 15, 1999 by Vaud* Ridrrtls ON41min am am OM Jurisdictional Allocations 304,13.11 Other Allocations Listed to the left •• I,1 Grand Total of AN ANoestions 5,132,652 TEA 21 Amount to CVAG par RCTC ' 5,550,824 r Remaining Amount Needs to be Allocated 418,172 F:WCLEWM1o1VN.ARIEMA211PROJEC ASrATU51199J NILSTA FY 2000-2003 PROPOSED CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Funding Available = $43,631,366 RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING: AGENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTION CMAQ $ REQ'D LESS 6.470 ATTACHMENT II TOTAL RECOM'D $ CUMM. TOTAL SCORE 1 RCTC SR 60/Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening $27,955,000 $1,789,120 $26,165,880 $26,165,880 19 2 County Valley Way EB Entrance & Exit Ramp Project ** $3,507,000 $0 $3,507,000 $29,672,880 16 3 Corona Main St/SR91 IC & Circulation Improvements $1,766,600 $113,062 $1,653,538 $31,326,418 15 4 Riverside SR 91/La Sierrra Ave. IC Reconstruction $1,700,000 $108,800 $1,591,200 $32,917,618 14 5 Riverside Jurupa Ave. Underpass at Union Pacific RR $6,700,000 $428,800 $6,271,200 $39,188,818 14 6 County Rancho Calif. Rd left & right turn lanes $1,056,000 $0 $1,056,000 $40,244,818 13 7 Lake Elsinore Interconnect at Center/Collier & Collier/Riverside $759,500 $48,608 $710,892 $40,955,710 13 8 San Jacinto Signal at Ramona/E. Main/San Jacin./De Anza $210,000 $13,440 $196,560 $41,152,270 13 9 Beaumont Interconnect at 1-10/SR79 $504,774 $32,306 $472,468 $41,624,738 12 10 Hemet Constructionof transportation/transit center $354,000 $22,656 $331,344 $41,956,082 12 11 Perris Traffic Signal at 4th St/Redlands Ave. $250,000 $16,000 $234,000 $42,190,082 12 12 Murrieta Traffic Signal at Jefferson Ave/Kalmia St. $71,715 $4,590 $67,125 $42,257,207 11 13 County Traffic Signal & Interconnect at Etiwanda Ave. $248,000 $0 $248,000 $42,505,207 10 14 So Cal Edison Zero Emission Mobile Industrial Equip Buydown $497,500 $31,840 $465,660 $42,970,867 10 15 Moreno Valley Traffic Signals along Nason Street $372,000 $23,808 $348,192 $43,319,059 9 16 Murrieta Traffic Signal at Jefferson Ave/Murrieta Hot Spr. $61,215 $3,918 $57,297 $43,376,357 9 17 Murrieta Traffic Signal at Adams Ave/Kalmia St. $71,715 $4,590 $67,125 $43,443,482 9 18 WRCOG Development of 2 Clean Cities Coalitions $158,589 $10,150 $148,439 $43,591,921 9 $46,243,608 $2,651,687 **Original request was for $6,507,000. The County will phase this project, thereby reducing required amount of CMAQ funds. $43,591,921 $43,591,921 Total Recommended 18 Projects, 13 Agencies CMAQEVAL.xIs Six IV/AM/WO 99813147`Sil S1S3no321 a30NnANf1 ivio1 .iapio / wood ui aou aye saloos pafad :aloN 6llaul 009'6L$ ueld uogepodsueu to uogeJedald leweH £Z 6llaul OOS'LLZ$ IsaM-Aenoued plylood to '6u3 ,$) u6isaa euao0 ZZ 6llaul 009'L£Z`Z$ Ise3-AenfoPed PIMA Io uogoruTsuoo euwo0 lZ Neu! 000`£6L$ uogezile4s v 6uwuapinn 'pH 011-1.1a0 13 euao0 OZ 6llaul 000'089'Z$ uoilezileu6p v 6uivapinn 'any ouelu0 euoa00 61. £ 000'0ZZ$ peod >laaJ0 Azel uo saapinoys 6uined Aluno0 86 £ 000'009$ peod luecpe0 1? peod Aalpei8 Io 6uined Aluno0 Li. y 000'b85$ sasn8 9N0 3Z V H9 io aseyaind bad 91. 9 06e1.811 ssauangoall3 land lesaipo18 to uogenien3 Inn y I. S 000'096$ uogelS 6uiland v Jossaidwo0 JN0 leweH V.LH 176 S 000'09 L$ peob ednunr to Japinoys pip 6uined Aluno0 £ t 9 9£Z'86t$ wea6oad anguaoui unnoplln8 land ueel0 DOOHM ZI• 9 006'£Z1.$ 'IS N000eaH le loauuoalalui /allen ouaioW t l 9 000'603 tiled 'Pad '8 el3A318 esn-11V1 'IS ele1S leweH 01. L Lt717`£L$ any uosaallafRS AA! le ieu6iS oigeil elawnW 6 L 006'£Z3 'pnl8 swad le loauuoaialul Aailen ouaiolN 8 L 000`86$ 'PH ssed u096ld le loauuoaJalul Aallen oualolN L L 000'L0£$ stiosinpy AnnH/su6iS a6essaiN aigea6uey0 suanie0 g 8 Z85'Z8$ any A000ueH/PH WO Ple0 le leu6iS ogled elawnW g 8 000'9ti6$ IS ueipul/any sul Ie leu6iS owed Aailen 01.19.1001 V 8 000'09Z$ yoJeW-uoilelS 6uisuadsid land anilewally ydr yaieW £ 8 000'1703 PH 1140 Apun8 le loauuoalalui v sieu6iS ogled Aluno0 Z 8 000'00917$ sdwe8 )100H 'IS uosipelnl/1.6 HS appJanN L 32100S III J tialRDVLIV 0,0321 $ OVIN3 NOI1d1210S30 103roud :spafom pepunlun 99£` 6£9`£ti$ = algellend 6ulpund NISV8 211d 1S`d00 H1f10S 3H1210d Wd219021d A11 vno 211d dNd NOLLV01111A1 NOIIS30N00 033S0d021d £00Z-000Z Ad RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update State Legislative Update As Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) Sacramento advocate D.J. Smith's monthly report (attached) states, the deadline for bills to be passed out of their "House of Origin" was June 4th. Thus, the Senate and Assembly each acted to quickly pass nearly 500 bills to the Assembly and Senate respectively. Those bills not passed out of the house of origin cannot be considered for a vote until the beginning the 2000 Legislative Session. Budget negotiations are underway. Governor Davis expects on -time passage of the State Budget (June 15) and, therefore, most legislators are focusing their attention on their budget priorities. AB 1012 (Torlakson), the project delivery bill which contains the Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) generated State Highway Account loan concept was passed 73 - 7 to the Senate and has not been assigned to the Senate Transportation Committee - no hearing date yet. SCA 3 (Burton) the bill to allow for a state transportation sales tax collected locally, at the writing of this report was passed set for hearing by the full Senate July 1. An oral update will be provided at the commission hearing. Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions: AB 102 (Scott Wildman, D - Los Angeles and Robert Hertzberg, D - Los Angeles) Would fund certain soundwall retrofit projects and Caltrain activities "off -the -top" of the State Highway Account. Staff recommends: Change from "Seek Amendment" to "Oppose". The staff analysis is attached. SB 928 (John Burton, D - San Francisco) Would authorize Federal Grant Anticipation Bonds. Staff recommends: "Support". The staff analysis is attached. Federal Legislative Update The Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee approved the mark-up for transportation appropriations. With the exception of the Community Transportation Environmental Acceptability Process (CETAP), none of the highway appropriations requests by RCTC or SANBAG (or the nation) were earmarked. All of the transit project requests submitted by SANBAG were earmarked. RCTC did not submit any transit requests other than to support the Southern California Regional Rail Authority requests. A twist in the legislation passed by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee was language placing a cap of 12.5 % on the total share of transit funds that could be received by a state during any fiscal year. This cap only affects California and New York. For California, the cap will result in a total of $1 18 million and for Riverside and San Bernardino County combined, a total of $4.2 million will be lost if the cap remains intact. Staff communicated the negative impact of this cap to Senator Feinstein's office before the bill came to the Senate Appropriations Committee. When the bill came before the full Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Feinstein voted in opposition to the bill stating the cap as her reason for voting "no." Senator Feinstein was the only "no" vote on the bill - no New York members are on the Appropriations Committee. It is expected that any of the House Transportation Appropriations bill will not contain the cap passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Therefore, this issue will likely be resolved through the budget conference committee. Conclusion The State Legislature is working on passing the State budget and has decided which bills merit consideration by either the Senate or Assembly, depending on the house of origin. The Senate Appropriations legislation contains a transit allocation cap nationwide which hurts California. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the following bill positions: AB 102 - change from "Seek Amendment" to "Oppose"; SB 928 - "Support". Receive and File the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. Date of Analysis: June 8, 1999 Bill Number/Author: SB 928 (John Burton, D- San Francisco) Introduced February 25, 1999 Amended June 1, 1999 Subject: Federal Grant Anticipation Notes Status: Passed Senate 32 — 3 on June 3`d 1999. To Assembly. No committee assignment yet. Summary: SB 928: 1. Authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in cooperation with the department and regional transportation agencies, to select and designate certain transportation projects approved in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for accelerated funding from the proceeds of federal highway grant anticipation notes, or GARVEE bonds; 2. Requires that on or before April First of each year, the commission, in conjunction with the Treasurer's Office, prepare an annual analysis of the banking capacity of federal transportation funds deposited in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund. 3. The commission, in cooperation with the department and regional transportation planning agencies, shall establish guidelines for eligibility for funding allocations under this bill. The guidelines shall be nondiscriminatory and shall be designed to allow as many counties as possible to establish eligibility for funding allocations under this chapter, regardless of the population or geographic location of the county. 4. Provides that the aggregate amount of federal transportation funds committed by the commission to the repayment of notes issued under this chapter may not be more than 30 percent of the amount of federal transportation funds estimated to be deposited in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund over a ten-year period commencing on January 1, 2000. 5. Counts all cost overruns and financial costs against a county's share of STIP funds in the year in which federal revenue used for project financing would have been available; 6. Requires the CTC to dedicate and pledge future receipts of federal transportation funds received by the state as collateral for the payment of interest, principal, and premium on the notes, so long as any GARVEE bond notes remain outstanding; 7. Specifies procedures for the issuance of the GARVEE bonds by the Treasurer, in cooperation with the CTC, and establish numerous technical requirements and guidelines for the issuance, security and redemption of the notes. It would authorize the employment of outside financial consultants, underwriters, accountants, etc., to facilitate those activities; 8. Prohibits the use of any state gas tax funds for the purposes of the proposed authority; and o:1ab 102-dws.doc 9. Requires an annual report to the Governor and Legislature detailing the total amount of outstanding debt issued and the projects funded by that outstanding debt. Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: Background The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 authorized federal -aid eligibility for bond related costs of financing transportation projects. In 1998, the federal Transportation Equity Act of the 21 st Century (TEA21) made "Garvee" bonds marketable by make bond related costs eligible for federal reimbursements on Federal -aid eligible highway projects. GARVEE bonds are tax-exempt bonds, which can be issued by a state and are backed by a state's future federal transportation appropriations. They were conceived as a tool for accelerating transportation projects and realizing cost savings by completing projects at present-day costs. Currently, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Mexico and New Jersey have availed themselves of this opportunity — each receiving an "AA" rating on the bonds sold. Along with SCA 3, Senator Burton has introduced SB 928 to provide opportunities for agencies such as Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to advance the construction date of highway projects. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT o:\ab102-dws.doc Date of Analysis: June 8, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 102 (Scott Wildman, D-Los Angeles and Robert Hertzberg, D — Los Angeles) Introduced December 21, 1998 Amended May 28, 1999 Subject: Funding For Soundwall Retrofit Projects Status: Summary: Passed Assembly 43 — 31 on June 3`d 1999. To Senate. No committee assignment yet. In 1989, the Legislature put together the Transportation Blueprint for the 21st Century, which was funded by a nine cents per gallon tax increase authorized by the passage of Proposition 111. The Blueprint authorized $150 million for constructing a list of 219 soundwalls. Due to cost escalation resulting from delays in project delivery, an estimated $200 million of work remains for the 1989 priority list; $134 million of it in Los Angeles County. None of the remaining soundwalls on the 1989 list are in Riverside or San Bernardino County. AB 102 proposes to fund the remaining soundwall project "off -the -top" of the State Highway Account (SHA). In other words, ,should AB 102 pass in its current form, funding the remaining soundwall projects must occur prior to programming SHA funds for any other program/project. On May 28, 1999, AB 102 was amended to provide "off -the -top" SHA funding for eight percent of the total costs for Caltrain rehabilitation activities, and 2% of the total costs of specified electrification activities on the Caltrain system. The Caltrain is a commuter train extending from San Francisco to San Jose. Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: Background Last year, AB 1686 (Wildman) attempted to resolve this issue. Both RCTC and SANBAG agreed to a compromise that proposed funding with the projects 50% off -the -top and a 50% contribution from the regional choice funds. However, late in the Legislatative Session, the approach of AB 1686 was reconfigured to split the funding for the soundwalls with a 50% contribution from the regional shares of those counties with projects and 50% from the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (subject to the North/South split). Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments successfully advocated for the Governor's veto of AB 1686. The veto request was based upon the policy that, much like the agreement o:\ab102-dws.doc for funding the seismic retrofit of the State's bridges, the seismic retrofit of soundwalls on the State's highways should be a responsibility shared equally by all parts of the State that includes a local contribution. In it's current form, AB 102 represents a cost to both Riverside and San Bernardino County totaling nearly $10 million. These figures only relate to the costs associated with funding soundwall projects; unclear presently are the costs associate with the Caltrain amendments recently put into the bill. Clearly, they will increase the negative impact upon both Riverside and San Bernardino County. To no avail, staff has attempted to work with the sponsor (LACMTA) of AB 102 to amend AB 102 in a manner that is less costly to both Riverside and San Bernardino. Both the author and Assembly Speaker Villaraigosa have stated their intention to pass AB 102 in its current form. In fact, with the Caltrain amendment, the bill has increased the costs to be beared by both Riverside and San Bernardino County Given the significant difference in costs to both Riverside and San Bernardino County, and the stated intent not to amend AB 102 as it relates to the "formula" for funding soundwall projects, the additional costs associated with the Caltrain amendments and the violation of the principles of SB 45 (Kopp, Statutes 1997) staff recommends RCTC and SANBAG change the current position of "Seek Amendment" to "Oppose". Staff Recommendation: CHANGE FROM SEEK AMENDMENT TO_OPPOSE o:\ab102-dws.doc 046452 CLIFF MADISON GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INC. 254-A Maryland Ave., N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202)543-9395 Facsimile (202) 543-4297 TO: Dave Shepherd - Paul Blackwelder FROM: Cliff Madison DATE: June 2, 1999 SUBJECT: May 1999 Federal Affairs Report During May, both the House and the Senate began the process of appropriating funds for transportation programs for FY 2000, which begins on October 1, 1999. That process will continue in June, with a House -Senate Conference to resolve the differences in the two bills probably in July. On Wednesday, May 5, I met with Congressman Ron` Packard (a Member of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee), and his staff to discuss the FY 2000 transportation appropriations proposals from the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Later, I accompanied members of the Riverside Monday Morning Group to a meeting with Congressman Jim Oberstar, the senior Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Still later, I met with Congressman Ken Calvert to discuss our FY 2000 transportation appropriations requests. On Monday, May 17, I met with John Blazey, staff of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, to discuss the FY 2000 transportation appropriations bill, and the requests made by the ROTC. Later, I met with Peter Rogoff, staff of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss the same subjects. On Wednesday, May 19, I met with Congressman Martin Sabo, the senior Democrat on the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, to discuss the FY 2000 transportation appropriations bill, and the RCTC requests. _ On Friday, May 21, I met with Congressman Nick Rahall, the senior Democrat on the House Surface Transportation Subcommittee, to discuss TEA-21, and any suggested changes to that law in which we may have an interest. On Tuesday, May 25, the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee met to consider legislation which would fund transportation programs for FY 2000. Among the highlights in the Senate bill are the following: -TUN — 2 — 9 9 W ED 1 S = 5ea CL I FF Pl D i -, -2- -- California will receive $2.3 billion in Federal -aid highway funds for FY 2000. -- The Administration had proposed using the unanticipated increase in highway revenues fox' discretionary purposes. The Senate bill rejected this proposal "in favor of an approach that passes the automatically increased funding generated by the greater than anticipated gas tax receipts and estimates of gas tax receipts directly to the states consistent with each state's individual guaranteed share under TEA-21." As a result, California's highway allocation will receive $131.7 million more than anticipated under TEA-21. -- $14 million has been allocated to AMTRAK to up -grade Union Pacific track "that will allow implementation of passenger service" between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. "This service may be initiated as early as mid-2000, and will have a travel time of five hours thirty minutes to cover the 270 mile distance between the two cities." The Committee bill would prevent any state from receiving more than 12.5 percent -of the aggregate formula and capital investment transit grants program's funds. California received 13.64 per cent of the transit formula program in FY 99. Thus, if this proposal were enacted into law, California would lose millions of dollars in FY 2000. The California and New York Senators (the only two states effected by the provision) are threatening to hold-up the bill, unless their concerns are considered. -- The Committee Report notes that funding provided in the FY 97 Transportation Appropriations Act for Riverside County in transit capital investment funds totaling $992,500. will lapse "if the grant recipients do not obligate the remaining unobligated funds by September 30, 1999." -- The Committee did not "earmark" funds for the Transportation and System and Community Preservation Program, the "New starts" rail program, nor the discretionary bus program. The Committee staff advised me that the Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants program - which is designed to help welfare reform efforts succeed by providing enhanced transportation services for low-income individuals, including former welfare recipients, .TUN- 2-ys, W ED 1 5 = S 7 L:L i F F f`t1 SUhN vv T -3- traveling to jobs or training centers - was funded at $75 million in FY 99, and that the Federal Transit Administration only received requests totaling $108 million. In other words, this is not a very competitive program, and may offer an excellent opportunity to apply for a grant, and receive that grant. It is a 50-50 matching share, but other Federal funds may be used to cover the local share. On Thursday, Nay 27, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the bill proposed by the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. That bill could be ready for consideration of the full Senate in June. Also on Thursday, May 27, the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee considered legislation which would fund transportation programs for FY 2000. In the House transportation appropriations bill, the following is note worthy: -- The "community and -environmental transportation acceptability program of Southern California" received $1 million from the Transportation and System and Community Preservation Program for FY 2000. The House Appropriations Committee is expected to consider the Transportation Subcommittee recommendation on Tuesday, June 8. 730 P02/03 JUN 09 '99 14:43 Smith Kempton Consulting and Governmental Relations MEMORANDUM To: RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors From: D. J. Smith and Delaney Hunter Date: June 9, 1999 Subject: Legislative Report and Update Transportation Finance Proposals Senator Burton's transportation package continues to move forward --- • Senate Bill 315 will be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee in the next few weeks. Senator Burton continues his commitment to send it to a conference committee. Further, there are preliminary discussions going on about the dollar figure associated with the bonds being closer to S8 billion, rather than $16 billion. • Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 passed out of the Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee today on a 4 to 1 vote. SCA 3 now heads for the Senate Appropriations Committee. • Senator Burton's Working Group continues to meet on.transportation infrastructure issues. The next meeting will be June 10 where the Group will continue its work on the pressing issues of the day — SCA 3 and the need for a comprehensive, state funding package. • Senate Constitutional Amendment 9 (Peace and McPherson), the California Business Roundtable proposal, passed out of the Senate and now heads for the Assembly. The second part of the California Business Roundtable's proposal, Assembly Bill 1473 (Hertzberg), passed out of the Assembly and will next be heard in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee. Assembly Bill 276 by Assemblyman John Longville, appropriates a one-time amount of $60 million to public transit. AB 276 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee but• Assemblyman Longville is working with the Budget Conference Committee to find the necessary funding for the Public Transit Account. 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560 . Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephonc (916) 446-5508 . FAX (916) 446-1499 730 P03/03 JUN 09 '99 14:43 AB 283 (Longville) — County Resolution of Necessity Bill Assembly Bill 283 introduced by Assemblyman John Longville, on behalf of SANBAG, will allow Caltrans to use the County's condemnation process and resolution of necessity. AB 283 will speed up the process and help with project delivery. We will be trying to amend the bill to include an urgency clause, which will make the change in law effective immediately upon signature by Governor Davis. AB 283 passed out of the Assembly on consent and is set for hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee on June 15. AB 1012 -- Protect Delivery Streamlining Bill Assembly Bill 1012, which will streamline transportation project delivery and set up a process to allow short term "loans" (originally an RCTC idea), passed out of the Assembly on a bi-partisan vote and will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee in the coming weeks. We continue to assist Assemblyman Torlakson and his staff in negotiating language in the bill with the Department of Transportation. Governor Davis' Commission on the 21" Century The Governor's Commission has set up special subcommittees — Technology Issues, Facilities Issues, Transportation Issues and Resources Issues — to deal with all those issues facing Califomia in the coming years. The Transportation Issues Subcommittee met on June 1 and focused on the issue of local sales taxes for transportation and their benefit to the state's transportation system. This group will be helpful in shaping the opinions of key policymakers on the issues contained in SCA 3_ 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 38 (Washington) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Passed the Assembly Floor 57- 20 on 5/13/99. Referred to Assembly Committee on Education 6/23/99. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 44 (McClintock) Would require Caltrans and local authorities to redesignate all existing HOV lanes as mixed flow. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee. Hearing canceled at the request of author. OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 71 (Cunneen) Would permit inherently low- emission vehicles (ILEV) to travel in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the ILEV. Passed Assembly Floor 79-0 on 5/27/99. Amended and referred to Senate Transportation Committee on 6/28/99. No hearing date set. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 74 (Strom -Martin) Amended to just Require State Intercity Freight Rail Study. Passed Assembly Floor 52-27 on 6/4/99. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. CHANGE FROM OPPOSE TO WATCH OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 WATCH SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 102 (Wildman and Hertzberg) Would fund the 1989 Priority Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -top of the State Highway Account. Passed the Assembly Floor 43- 31 on 6/3/99. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. CHANGE FROM SEEK AMENDMENT TO OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99-SEEK AMENDMENT RCTC 3/10/99-SEEK AMENDMENT AB 276 (Longville) Would redirect a portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the Public Transportation Account Passed the Assembly Floor on Revenue, Tax and Transportation 14-2 on 5/10/99. Held in Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 283 (Longville) Would allow a resolution of necessity to be approved by a County Board of Supervisors, rather than the California Transportation Commission. Passed the Assembly Floor 76- 0 on 4/20/99. Passed the Senate Transportation and Judiciary Committees 11-0 on 6/21/99. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. No hearing date yet. SPONSOR - ADOPTED AS PART OF THE STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SANBAG 1/6/99 RCTC 1/13/99 AB 308 (Longville) Would require a review and analysis o f the Public Transportation Account expenditures and a review of the account's needs Passed the Assembly Floor 48- 31 on6/2/99. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 521( McClintock) Would redirect that portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the State Highway Account. Set for hearing on 4/19/99 in the Assembly Transportation Committee. Hearing canceled at the request of author. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 872 (Alquist) Would allow reimbursement of local funds used to advance STIP programmed projects. Passed the Assembly Floor 78- 0 on 6/1/99. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee on 6/17/99. No hearing date set. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 923 (Hertzberg) Would increase the fines for Rail Right of Way violations. Passed the Assembly Floor 63- 13 on 5/26/99. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date set. SUPPORT SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 AB 1012 (Torlakson) A comprehensive transportation reform package intended to enhance Caltrans' operating environment; includes the RCTC/SANBAG generated "loan" concept. Passed Assembly Floor 73-7 on 6/2/99. Hearing postponed by Senate Transportation Committee 6/30/99. No hearing date set. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1425(Runner) Provides Statutory Direction To Caltrans to Insure More TEA21 Funds Flow Directly to Regions.. Passed the Assembly Floor 50- 23 on 5/27/99. Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 AB 1475 (Soto) Would Designate a Portion of Federal Transportation Safety Funding to School Safety Programs. Passed the Assembly Floor 50- 25 on 6/2/99. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. OPPOSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 5/12/99 AB 1571 (Villaraigosa) Creates the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Standards Attainment Program. Passed the Assembly Floor 78- 0 on 5/26/99. Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee & Environmental Quality Committee. No hearing date yet. SEEK AMENDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1612 (Florez) Would Allocate $300 Million of State Highway Account Dollars to Rehabilitate Streets and Roads. Passed the Assembly Floor 60- 20 on 6/2/99. Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee. Hearing date canceled at the request of the author 6/24/99. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED OPPOSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 5/12/99 SB 14 (Rainey) Would require extensive study prior to construction of future HOV lanes. Passed the Senate Transportation Committee 33-1 on 6/1/99. In Assembly Transportation Committee, no hearing date yet. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 17 (Figueroa) Would permit employers to receive a tax credit for purchasing transit passes for their employers. Hearing in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee on 5/27/99, postponed. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 63 (Solis) Would reduce the minimum occupancy for the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. Passed Senate Floor 40-0 on 5/10/99. Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 14-2 on 6/8/99. Passed Assembly Appropriations Committee 15-0 on 6/28/99. To Assembly Floor. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 65 (Murray) Would appropriate $20 Million to support welfare to work transportation projects Hearing set on Senate Appropriations Committee for 5/27/99. Hearing postponed by committee. SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 SB 98 (Alarcon) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Passed the Senate Floor 56-21 on 6/1/99. Signing into law by the governor on 6/8/99. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 117 (Murray) Makes the State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation fund permanent. Passed the Senate Floor 24-12 on 6/ 1 /99. Referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee and the Natural Resources & Wildlife Committee. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 481(Baca) Establishes a Study of the Economic Benefits of an Inland Port. Passed Senate Transportation Committee 30-4 on 5/24/99. Referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 • Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 928 (Burton) Authorizes Federal Grant Revenue Anticipation Notes-(Garvee Bonds) Passed Senate Floor 32-3 on 6/2/99. Referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. NO POSITION SUPPORT SANBAG RCTC SB 1043 (Murray) Requires the California High Speed Rail Authority to Submit it's Financial Plan to the Legislature for Approval. Passed Senate Floor on 28-9 on 5/27/99. Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0 on 6/21 /99. SUPPORT SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 SB 1277 (Hayden) Would Prohibit Construction of Roads in Lands Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and the state conservancies. Passed Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee 5-3 on 5/13/99. Passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 7-4 on 6/10/99. Referred to the Senate Floor. OPPOSE NO POSITION RCTC 5/12/99 SANBAG 6/2/99 SCA 3 (Burton) Would allow state ballot measure for local transportation sales taxes. Passed Senate Transportation Committee 8-0 on 5/24/99. Passed Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee 4-1 on 6/9/99. Passed S e n a t e Appropriations Committee 7-2 on 6/24/99. To Senate Floor. SUPPORT RCTC 5/12/99 SANBAG 6/2/99 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 14, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues & Communications THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Consultant Agreement with Gladstein & Associates in Support of Adopted as part of the Commission's FY99/00 budget under the Regional Issues Department is a goal which focuses on the facilitation of public and private investment in clean air technology to support the broader air quality programs within the county and region. One of the objectives under the goal states: "Influence implementation of the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor plan to facilitate the location of clean fuel infrastructure and deployment of clean fuel equipment along designated corridors in Riverside County and the greater region through financial support and staff participation." The Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor (ICTC) was initiated by Gladstein & Associates in January 1996 to develop alternative fuel infrastructure and facilitate the deployment of alternative fuel trucks to move freight between non -attainment areas and Clean Cities in the Western United States along 1-80, I-5/SR99 and the 1-15. The FY99/00 ICTC efforts are budgeted at $283,000 and include funding from a broad base of stakeholders including the California Energy Commission, California Air Resources Board, Department of Energy, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and South Coast Air Quality Management District among others. The Commission became a stakeholder in FY97/98 with a contribution of $25,000 for work efforts focused within Riverside County along the 1-10, 1-15, 1-215, SR60 and SR86 corridors. In FY98/99, RCTC maintained its role as a stakeholder in the ICTC partnership at the original level of funding. Among the consultant's accomplishments in the fiscal year just completed are: ■ preparation of MSRC and Moyer grant applications on behalf of Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., Stater Bros., and City of Riverside totaling over $5 million to provide incremental funding for CNG/LCNG heavy duty equipment and fueling infrastructure ■ identification of and outreach to a variety of public and private entities to develop interest in adoption of clean fuel technology ■ oversight of Ralphs Grocery Company MSRC grant application (42 vehicles) originally prepared by ICTC to maintain Ralphs commitment to the Riverside Distribution Center location during the Ralphs/Kroger merger process ■ development and implementation of a Clean Cities/alternative fuels all day workshop in Riverside attended by over 300 people ■ provision of technical assistance to RCTC and its staff ■ production and distribution of various informational materials Based on performance to date, staff is recommending that the Commission allocate $25,000 in Transportation Development Act funds for a consultant agreement with Gladstein pursuant to the attached ICTC Phase III scope of work. Funding for ICTC support was included in the adopted RCTC FY99/00 budget. Staff will continue to play an active role in the ICTC to: 1) oversee consultant work at the local level, and 2) provide input and guidance to the overall ICTC work effort through its Steering Committee. Financial Assessment Project Cost $25,000 Source of Funds Transportation Development Act (TDA) is „ :v }:4.i�tt}tv}i}:}•:}}:y;}: :vt:.:::t,}••n:t,t.•q:i:t.:::.;i.x:x:}vi}..t:tx.>..t }} ni:}i'•:i}i}t.}t:itt xx:vx-x :ux•= tv..-} 'mf }{Q}:•:..'• �• t�.':v:: .:t}ti}it ,}}:i}vxt: tt}txx{txx\txtxti:l::.:vx}:.:.}}.,.v:•.i::t}tixrti}tt}t.vn::•xv:..:wvvivv:::{. .n}:t....,:..} Q\:txvvtiv}}..i:}i\t:v}}tii.}`Jt:tivvv:,:t>.,S�;::t}:;• Included in Fiscal Year Budget Yes 1999/00 Year BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to 1) enter into a consultant agreement with Gladstein & Associates to implement the attached FY99/00 ICTC scope of work; and 2) approve the allocation of $25,000 from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for the work effort. INTERSTATE CLEAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR REQUEST Gladstein & Associates (G&A), acting as Project Director of the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor (ICTC), seeks to raise $283,183.00 to implement Phase III of the ICTC Project. G&A is requesting $25,000.00 from the Riverside County Transportation Commission to partially fund this phase of the project. While G&A and the ICTC have enjoyed notable success to date, more must be done to expand the deployment of medium- and heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicles in the near -term. The ICTC Team has targeted a number of specific implementation projects as well as organizing the second Fleet Operators Workshop (held at Riverside's historic Mission Inn) and general outreach activities which will correspond with the multiple criteria for market development as defined by the ICTC Comprehensive Strategic Program Plan. The requested funding will be used to assist the ICTC staff as they pursue the following Market Development Scope of Work for the period of July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. OVERVIEW Since its inception in January 1996, the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor (ICTC) Project has been the nation's most successful public -private partnership dedicated to accelerating the market penetration of clean, alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in interstate goods movement. The ICTC seeks to foster AFV deployment and alternative fuel infrastructure development that will link Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Reno and Salt Lake City along I-80, I-5, CA-99, I-10 and I-15. At present, ICTC staff helped to secure over $6.3 million in funding to: • build nine natural gas fueling stations in California and Nevada (Buena Park, Coalinga, Fresno, Glendale, Las Vegas, Reno, Riverside, Santa Fe Springs, Tulare); and, • deploy 119 heavy-duty and 160 light duty natural gas vehicles (NGVs) to use these stations. The first two ICTC supported natural gas fueling stations should be in operation by July 1999, with 42 natural gas tractors utilizing this infrastructure. Almost $3 million in additional funding proposals have either been submitted or are in development that will result in the deployment of 70 more natural gas trucks and development of two more natural gas fueling stations in the region. ICTC project is moving closer to its goal of fostering the establishment of 20 natural gas fueling stations and deployment of 375 heavy-duty NGVs to utilize this infrastructure that will help to: • Reduce emissions of NOx and PM by over 300 tons annually over the 1998 HDV emissions standards for NOx and PM. • Displace nearly 4 million gallons of diesel per year. • Result in total public/private economic activity of over $17 million. 06/21/99 1 SCOPE OF WORK Tasks 1 - 7, ICTC Market Development: The goal of the ICTC is to identify and implement medium- and heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicle projects that will help to establish the infrastructure to serve truck fleet operators. In order to accomplish these goals, G&A will pursue the following general tasks: (a) Work to secure commitments from truck fleet operators to purchase and deploy medium - and heavy-duty AFVs; (b) Assist fleet operators to develop AFV specifications, and identify and select engine and chassis vendors; (c) Work to identify existing fueling sites for fleets to use or develop new public -access stations to support fleets; (d) Identify funding to deploy vehicles and develop infrastructure and help stakeholders acquire those resources; (e) Help to secure, evaluate and make recommendations on bids to develop AFV fueling stations and provide fuel; (f) Assist with permitting process to develop AFV fueling stations; (g) Work with engine and chassis makers to ensure that alternative fuel trucks meet fleet operator's needs; (h) Work with engine and fuel providers to ensure that fleet personnel are adequately trained; (i) Assist fleet operators to highlight deployment projects through press and media outlets; (j) Work to increase the base -load and maximize economic viability of existing AFV stations; and (k) Provide other technical or policy assistance as needed. Task 1 - Fleet Operator/Stakeholder Outreach: Through existing outreach, G&A has been able to build the number of fleets which are aware of and interested in deploying alternative fuel tractors in the ICTC Project area to well over 300. We propose to continue this activity, expanding the universe of companies that are knowledgeable about clean, alternative fuel tractors, and recruiting them to participate in deployment projects. In Riverside, the ICTC will continue outreach to the County's fleet operators that have been identified in previous outreach efforts including the 1998 2nd Annual Fleet Operators Workshop at the Mission Inn. In addition, we will focus on increasing awareness of low emission alternatives to diesel powered heavy duty trucks among the companies that have located or are locating their distribution and warehousing facilities in the western part of the County. Task 2 - New Project Development and Implementation - Clean Cities: ICTC Project staff have identified several potential projects in U.S. DOE designated Clean Cities which are still at the developmental/planning stages. ICTC staff will continue working with stakeholders pursuing these projects to ensure that they come to fruition. In addition, we will continue investigating and pursuing as yet unidentified deployment and infrastructure projects that we expect to emerge over the course of the ICTC. 06/21 /99 2 Those Riverside -based fleet operators that have expressed interest in engaging in deployment projects of alternative fuel trucks will be targeted by ICTC staff for special assistance. We will work with these fleets, helping them evaluate engine and chassis options which best suit their needs. We will also work with them to identify and apply for local, state and federal sources of funding to pay for vehicle incremental costs and refueling infrastructure. We will continue to provide technical and financial support to these fleet operators throughout the project development and implementation process. Task 3 - New Project Development and Implementation - Other: ICTC staff have identified projects still at the developmental/planning stages in areas which have not been designated as Clean Cities. While Clean Cities play an integral role in ICTC project development, it is imperative that ICTC staff target projects outside the targeted corridors to create a functioning interstate clean fuel corridor. Therefore, ICTC staff will continue working with stakeholders pursuing these projects in non -Clean Cities to ensure that they come to fruition. In addition, we will continue investigating and pursuing as yet unidentified deployment and infrastructure projects in non -Clean Cities that we expect to emerge over the course of the ICTC project. As most of Riverside County is a part of either the Northwest Riverside County Clean Cities Coalition or the Coachella Valley Clean Cities Coalition, the ICTC will likely provide all of its new project development and implementation assistance in Riverside County under Task 2. However, if there are fleet operators based in Riverside County communities which are not members of either of the County's two Clean Cities coalitions, the ICTC staff will provide technical and financial assistance to them as well. Task 4 - Continued Support for All Existing ICTC Sites: G&A has begun to implement several heavy-duty AFV projects in the region that will result in the development of nine LNG fueling stations and deployment of 119 LNG tractors in the Project area. In addition, the ICTC has submitted funding proposals for another 86 vehicles. As part of our activities on behalf of ICTC, G&A will focus energy and resources to ensure the successful implementation of projects already underway. The ICTC Project has several ongoing deployment projects in and close to Riverside County. These include a 27 truck deployment with Burrtec, a 42 truck deployment with Ralph's, and a 20 truck deployment project with Stater Brothers. In addition, the ICTC Project submitted a proposal for 2 natural gas trash trucks for the City of Riverside Sanitation Department. These efforts are each at different stages. ICTC staff will continue to support these projects to ensure that they are successfully completed. Task 5 - Project Support - Existing/Planned AFV Sites along the ICTC: Part of the ICTC's mission has always been to enhance collaboration between stakeholders developing alternative fuel stations so that they are fully utilized and economically viable, even when the ICTC project has not initiated these projects. Therefore, ICTC staff will continue work with existing or planned AFV projects in the region to integrate their efforts into the ICTC framework. 06/21 /99 3 As of this writing, there aren't any non-ICTC heavy duty truck deployment projects in Riverside County that we are aware of. There are, however, several companies immediately outside of the County which have either deployed vehicles or have a LNG fueling station in operation. These include UPS (at Ontario Airport) and Taormina Industries (in Anaheim). In addition, Waste Management of the Desert plans a large natural gas vehicle deployment project in the near future. ICTC staff will work to ensure that Riverside County -based stakeholders are aware of these activities and facilities and utilize these projects to enhance the operations of Riverside County -based projects or expand awareness of low -emission alternatives to diesel - powered heavy duty vehicles among the County's fleet operators. Task 6 - Technology Assistance G&A will provide technical assistance to interested fleet operators and other stakeholders as they pursue heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicle projects. Assistance will include but not be limited to assessment of relevant vehicle and fueling station technologies and siting, safety and permitting issues for infrastructure development. The ICTC staff continually evaluate new developments in low -emission heavy duty technology and fueling infrastructure. For instance, soon a liquefaction facility may be built in or near the County which would provide very low cost fuel to the projects mentioned above, as well as to new projects we hope to initiate in the coming fiscal year. Such technical knowledge will be shared with stakeholders in Riverside County, in the hope that it will increase their willingness to participate in ICTC deployment projects. Task 7 - Program Development/Evaluation G&A will provide ICTC stakeholders and Steering Committee members with regular updates on ICTC-related activities and suggest appropriate opportunities for public -private collaboration as well as organize regular meetings/conference calls of the Steering Committee to review ICTC Project activities and to discuss opportunities for public agencies to collaborate on clean, alternative fuel truck projects. Preparation of monthly progress reports for continued implementation of the ICTC Project and a final evaluation of the ICTC Project will also be provided. The Final evaluation will be due at the completion of the Project. RCTC staff have been instrumental in the governance of the ICTC Project since its inception. We look forward to the continued involvement and leadership of the RCTC in the ICTC Project. O6/21 /99 4 ICTC Expenses and Revenue for FY 1999/2000 Projected Expenses i*xpense.Item Rate Hours Cost Direct Labor Expenses Principal $125.00 530.00 $66,250.00 Principal II $110.00 98.00 $10,780.00 Senior Associates $90.00 962.75 $86,647.50 Events Director $72.00 325.00 $23,400.00 Associate $56.00 516.50 $28,924.00 Junior Associate $50.00 215.52 $10,776.00 Clerical/Support Staff $37.00 500.39 $18,514.43 Average Hourly Rate, Subtotal Hours and Labor $ 77.92 3,148.16 $245,291.93 Direct Expenses Supplies & Informational Packet Materials $13,500.00 Steering Committee Support $9,500.00 Phone and FAX $5,400.00 Copies, Printing, Postage $2,760.00 Travel - Airline, lodging, transportation $6,150.00 Mileage— 1,874 @ $.31 $581.00 Subtotal Direct Expenses $37,891.00 Total ICTC Expenses for FY 1999/200 $283,182.93 Projected Revenue Agency Contribution San Bernardino Associated Governments - SANBAG $25,000.00 Riverside Country Transportation Commission - RCTC $25,000.00 South Coast Air Quality Management District — SCAQMD $38,180.00 California Energy Commission - CEC $20,000.00 California Air Resources Board - CARB $50,000.00 Department of Energy - DOE $100,000.00 Other Miscellaneous Contributions $25,003.00 Total FY 1999/2000 Agency Contributions $283,183.00 F:\users\preprint\mw\ictc.doc 06/22/99 5