DOCSLIB.ORG

Non-Railroad Use Compatibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Non-Railroad Use Compatibility VERSION 1.1 - AUGUST 2020 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD NON-RAILROAD USE COMPATIBILITY APPLICATION This application is intended to help Caltrain staff determine if a proposed non-railroad use of Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) property - such as utilities, commercial businesses, development proposals, or community facilities - is compatible with the railroad’s current and future needs for its property. Please consult the Caltrain website to determine if your proposed project must undergo the Caltrain Non-railroad Use Compatibility Review in compliance with the Caltrain Rail Corridor Use Policy. Please fill out all fields in the application including the project information on page 2. For additional information, please refer to the Rail Corridor Use Policy website at https://www.caltrain.com/about/doingbusiness/ Property_Access_Agreement_Process/RCUP_Review_Process.html. If you need additional assistance, please contact Caltrain staff at [email protected]. APPLICANT INFORMATION Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Legal Name of Organization or Business Business Address City State Zip Code Contact Name Contact Phone Number Contact Email Type of Organization (select one) Commercial business or developer City or government agency Utility company Other (please specify below) Other PROJECT INFORMATION Project Location (include address, parcel number, and/or describe project extents and attach RCUP map(s) with indication of project location(s)) Please attach RCUP map(s) with indication of location(s) and approximate footprint of the proposed project Present or Previous Use of Property (describe) Description of Project Proposal (specify the proposed use and/or operations) 1 VERSION 1.1 - AUGUST 2020 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD NON-RAILROAD USE COMPATIBILITY APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION (CONTINUED) Anticipated Project Duration (specify dates) From Month,Year To Month, Year Less than 5 years More than 5 years Proposed Primary Project Use Select one primary use (commercial and development uses, community feature or utilities) and fill-in the required detail for this use. Commercial and development uses Is the proposed project within existing structures on JPB property? (if yes, select the existing use below) Eating and drinking establishments Retail establishments Offices Museums Other (please specify) Does the project propose new and/or long-term structures on JPB property? (if yes, select the use and fill-in required detail below) Offices Total square footage Residences Total number of units % of affordable units Retail Space Total square footage Other (please specify) Does the proposed use fall under one of the following categories? Vehicle sales, rentals, and service establishments Staging ground for nearby non-railroad construction projects Other uses that serve commercial purposes (please specify) Community Features (if yes, select primary feature of proposed community feature project below) Access facilities, such as walking or bicycling paths Recreational facilities, such as a park or community garden Community event, such as a farmer’s market Other uses that serve public purposes (please specify) Utilities (if yes, select primary feature of proposed utility project below) Facilities and infrastructure that support one of the following: Electricity Gas Sewer Water Telecommunications Other uses that serve vital public services (please specify) Please attach any additional information that you believe may help Caltrain staff understand and assess your application and the proposed project (such as site area maps, renderings, etc.). Did you attach the RCUP map(s) that shows the approximate location and size of your project? 2 Hull Dr PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD Holly St 2/6/2020 ADOPTED CALTRAIN RAIL CORRIDOR USE POLICY: MAP 16 OF 34 @! 4th & King Station @! San Carlos Station @! 22nd Street Station San Carlos Ave @! Bayshore Station @! South San Francisco Station I n l d a u e s ! t R @ San Bruno Station r i o a n l i R d m a C ! l @ Millbrae Station E t s e W @! Broadway Station O l d @! Burlingame Station C o u n t y R @! San Mateo Station d @! Hayward Park Station @! Hillsdale Station @! Belmont Station @! San Carlos Brittan Ave Station @! Redwood City Station @! Atherton Station @! Menlo Park Station Howard Ave @! Palo Alto Station `_101 @! Stanford Stadium Station @! California Avenue Station @! San Antonio Station @! Mountain View Station @! Sunnyvale Station @! Lawrence Station S t a f f o r d @! Santa Clara Station S t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! @ ! ! ! College Park Station ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! @ ! San Jose Diridon Station ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! @ ! ! Tamien Station ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! JPB-Owned ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! UPRR-Owned ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! @ Capitol Station ! ' ! N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 100 500 1000 2000 Feet ! ! ! ! ! ! Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Property Use Zones Service Vision Capital Project Overlay ! ! ! ! Whipple Ave ! ! ! ! ! 1: Operating Right-of-Way Service Vision Capital Project Overlay ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2: Station Right-of-Way ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3: Non-Operating Right-of-Way ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4: Special Study Area ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hopkins Ave Note:Map is for general information only. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board property lines are approximate and for illustrative purposes only. Brewster Ave.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Caltrain TIRCP Application Jan
    PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPLICATION FOR 2018 TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM FUNDS PROJECT NARRATIVE A. Project Title Page Project Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project (EEP) includes a series of incremental investments in the 51-mile Caltrain Corridor between the 4th and King Station (San Francisco) and the Tamien Station (San Jose). These investments are focused on expanding and fully converting Caltrain’s mainline diesel fleet to electric trains. This investment builds on and leverages the existing Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) and supports the goals of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), providing increased capacity and service flexibility, supporting state and interregional connectivity, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through elimination of diesel service from the mainline Peninsula Corridor. In addition to providing immediate, direct benefits, the EEP also represents an incremental step within a larger program of development that will evolve the Peninsula Corridor in a way that supports the ridership, service levels, and connectivity goals contemplated in the draft 2018 State Rail Plan. The central component of Caltrain’s 2018 TIRCP application is the purchase of 96 additional Electric Multiple Units (EMU). This procurement will fully exercise all available options under Caltrain’s current contract with Stadler and will provide sufficient EMUs to fully electrify Caltrain’s mainline fleet, while also sustaining and expanding capacity to accommodate growing demand. In addition to requesting funds for the purchase of EMUs, Caltrain is also requesting a smaller amount funding for a series of associated projects that will equip the corridor to receive and operate a fully electrified fleet in a way that allows the railroad to reap the maximum benefit from its investments.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Menlo Park TDM Existing Conditions
    City of Menlo Park TMA Options Analysis Study: Existing Conditions ___ Client: City of Menlo Park January 2020 Our ref: 23642101 Content 3 Introduction 4 Existing Travel Options 4 Rail and Transit 5 Public and Private Shuttles 6 Existing TDM Programming 8 Travel Patterns 9 Northern Menlo Park 10 Central Menlo Park 11 Downtown Menlo Park 12 Southern Menlo Park 13 Stakeholder Outreach 13 Interviews 16 Small Business Drop Ins 18 Employee Survey 22 Conclusions 23 Next Steps 2 | January 2020 City of Menlo Park: TDM Existing Conditions Introduction TMA Options Analysis for Menlo Park Menlo Park Focus Area Zones The four zones include: The City of Menlo Park has commissioned an Options This Existing Conditions Report (and subsequent 1. Northern Menlo Park (including Bohannon Dr. Analysis for establishing a Transportation reports and analyses) focuses on four areas or area) Management Association (TMA). “zones” within the City of Menlo Park. Each zone 2. Central Menlo Park faces unique challenges due to both its location and As has been seen across Silicon Valley and generally the specific land uses and industry housed within it. 3. Downtown Menlo Park the Bay Area, recent years have brought an increase 4. Southern Menlo Park (including SLAC area) in congestion in the City of Menlo Park. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has Figure 1: Map of Menlo Park Zone Analysis been utilized for years to curb congestion by encouraging non single-occupancy vehicle travel across worksites, cities and counties in the Bay Area and beyond. As TDM is implemented in Menlo Park at a variety of levels, the City hopes that a TMA may help to better coordinate the efforts between public and private entities in the city, and potentially region-wide.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Draft EIS/EIR Chapter 4.2: Transportation and Transit
    Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Draft EIS/EIR 4.2 TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT 4.2.1 INTRODUCTION This section discusses existing and future transportation conditions in the SVRTC and quantifies the expected long-term transportation impacts of the No-Action, Baseline, and BART alternatives. Existing and projected future transit services, forecasts of transit patronage, and impacts on travel patterns and the transportation environment are described, as well as existing and projected vehicular traffic, circulation, parking, and non-motorized conditions in the corridor. Traffic operations under each of the project alternatives during the peak hour are evaluated, with emphasis on intersection level of service, and measures are identified for mitigating adverse impacts of the Baseline and BART alternatives on the roadway network. Short-term construction-phase impacts are discussed in Section 4.19, Construction. Future transit patronage and vehicular traffic volumes were developed using an enhanced version of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) regional model. Transportation modeling approaches, assumptions, baseline projects, and projections for existing conditions under the Baseline and BART alternatives are described in the Travel Demand Modeling Methodology Report, Travel Demand Forecasts Report, and three traffic impact analysis reports addressing the station areas in the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2003)1. These reports form the basis for much of the information in this section. 4.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING 4.2.2.1 Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Level of Service Policies The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) Land Use Analysis Program requires a level of service analysis for roadway segments within a study area if 100 evening peak hour vehicle trips are generated by a proposed project (see Section 4.2.6.2 for definitions of level of service).
    [Show full text]
  • BLUE LINE Light Rail Time Schedule & Line Route
    BLUE LINE light rail time schedule & line map Baypointe View In Website Mode The BLUE LINE light rail line (Baypointe) has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Baypointe: 12:29 AM - 11:46 PM (2) Virginia: 12:16 AM - 11:33 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest BLUE LINE light rail station near you and ƒnd out when is the next BLUE LINE light rail arriving. Direction: Baypointe BLUE LINE light rail Time Schedule 17 stops Baypointe Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 12:30 AM - 10:20 PM Monday Not Operational Virginia Station West Virginia Street, San Jose Tuesday Not Operational Children's Discovery Museum Station Wednesday 12:29 AM - 11:46 PM Convention Center Station Thursday 12:29 AM - 11:46 PM 300 Almaden Bl, San Jose Friday 12:29 AM - 11:46 PM San Antonio Station Saturday 12:29 AM - 11:47 PM 200 S 1st St, San Jose Santa Clara Station Fountain Alley, San Jose BLUE LINE light rail Info Saint James Station Direction: Baypointe Stops: 17 Japantown/Ayer Station Trip Duration: 33 min 15 Hawthorne Way, San Jose Line Summary: Virginia Station, Children's Discovery Museum Station, Convention Center Station, San Civic Center Station Antonio Station, Santa Clara Station, Saint James 800 North 1st Street, San Jose Station, Japantown/Ayer Station, Civic Center Station, Gish Station, Metro/Airport Station, Karina Gish Station Court Station, Component Station, Bonaventura North 1st Street, San Jose Station, Orchard Station, River Oaks Station, Tasman Station, Baypointe Station Metro/Airport Station 1740 North First
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation and Traffic
    4.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This chapter describes the existing traffic conditions of the EA Study Area and evaluates the potential envi- ronmental consequences of future development that could occur by adopting and implementing the pro- posed Housing Element Update, General Plan Consistency Update, and associated Zoning Ordinances amendments, together referred to as the “Plan Components” on transportation and traffic. A summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of Plan Components and cumulative impacts. The chapter is based on the traffic analysis prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants dated March 8, 2013, herein referred to as “Traffic Study.” The future baseline traffic volumes have been developed from output of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) travel demand model run by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The travel demand associated with the Plan Components have been obtained from the C/CAG Model based upon the anticipated future land uses that have been developed resulting from the land use controls under Near-Term 2014 and 2035 condi- tions. The complete Traffic Study and technical appendices are included in Appendix F of this EA. A. Regulatory Framework 1. Federal Laws and Regulations a. Federal Highway Administration The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the agency of the United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the federally-funded roadway system, including the interstate high- way network and portions of the primary State highway network, such as Interstate 280 (I-280). b. Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive rights and protections to indi- viduals with disabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • For Sale 11,318 Sq
    1016-1018 FOR SALE 11,318 SQ. FT. LAND S. ALMADEN AVENUE OFFICE / RETAIL / MIXED-USE SAN JOSE, CA Ideal Development Opportunity Willow Street South Almaden Avenue PROPERTY SUMMARY FEATURES LOCATION: 1016 - 1018 South Almaden Aveune • Signalized corner lot San Jose, CA 95110 • Less than 2 miles from: Negotiable ASKING PRICE: -Downtown San Jose LAND SIZE: Approximately 11,318 sq. ft. (buyer to verify) -Diridon and Tamien Caltrain stations APN: 434-07-087 Zoning: CP (More Info link) 434-07-0 88 Zoning: R-M (M ore Info link) • Close proximity to all major freeways GENERAL PLAN: M.U.C - Mixed-use commercial (More Info link) • Wide range of development uses • Ideal residential or retail development opportunity For further information or to schedule a tour, please contact: Lloyd H. Bakan Wendy Leung, CCIM Principal Vice President 650.425.6418 650.425.6416 [email protected] [email protected] CA License # 00914232 CA License # 01407609 The above statement was made based upon information furnished to us by the owner or from sources we believe are reliable. While we do not doubt its accuracy, we have not verified it and we do not make any guarantee, warranty or representation about it. The property offered is subject to prior sale, lease, change of price or withdrawal from the market without notice. 1016-1018 S. ALMADEN AVE SAN JOSE, CA Vehicles Street Per Day Frontage Land Size Zoning 10,175 VPD 129’ on 1016 S. Almaden 11,318 sq. ft. CP (APN: 434-07-087) 40’ on 1018 S. Almaden (0.26 acres) R-M (APN:434-07-088) General Plan SJ 2040: Zoning M.U.C For further information or to schedule a tour, please contact: Lloyd H.
    [Show full text]
  • Route(S) Description 26 the Increased Frequency on the 26 Makes the Entire Southwestern Portion of the Network Vastly More Useful
    Route(s) Description 26 The increased frequency on the 26 makes the entire southwestern portion of the network vastly more useful. Please keep it. The 57, 60, and 61 came south to the area but having frequent service in two directions makes it much better, and riders from these routes can connect to the 26 and have much more areas open to them. Thank you. Green Line The increased weekend service on the Green line to every twenty minutes is a good addition of service for Campbell which is seeing markedly better service under this plan. Please keep the increased service. Multiple Please assuage public concerns about the 65 and 83 by quantifying the impact the removal of these routes would have, and possible cheaper ways to reduce this impact. The fact is that at least for the 65, the vast majority of the route is duplicative, and within walking distances of other routes. Only south of Hillsdale are there more meaningful gaps. Mapping the people who would be left more than a half mile (walkable distance) away from service as a result of the cancellation would help the public see what could be done to address the service gap, and quantifying the amount of people affected may show that service simply cannot be justified. One idea for a route would be service from winchester transit center to Princeton plaza mall along camden and blossom hill. This could be done with a single bus at a cheaper cost than the current 65. And nobody would be cut off. As far as the 83 is concerned, I am surprised the current plan does not route the 64 along Mcabee, where it would be eq..
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSPORTATION and TRANSIT /  with the Santa Teresa to Alum Rock Line on 1St Street 4.2.2 Transit Between Downtown San Jose and Tasman Drive
    \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ 4.2 \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ TRANSPORTATION \\\\\\\\ AND TRANSIT \\\\\\\\ 4.2.1 IntroductIon traffic impact reports are listed below and form the basis for much of the information in this section. This section discusses existing and future o Milpitas BART Stations Transportation Impact transportation conditions in the study area, and quan- Analysis, Draft, Hexagon Transportation tifies the expected long-term transportation impacts Consultants, Inc., September 20, 2006. of the Without Project and BART Extension Project. o San Jose BART Stations Transportation Impact Existing and projected future transit services, forecasts Analysis, Draft, Hexagon Transportation of transit patronage, and impacts on travel patterns Consultants, Inc., August 30, 2006. and the transportation environment are described, o Santa Clara BART Stations Transportation as well as existing and projected vehicular traffic, Impact Analysis, Draft, Hexagon Transportation circulation, parking, and non-motorized conditions Consultants, Inc., August 24, 2006. in the study area. Traffic operations during the peak hour are evaluated, with emphasis on intersection The analysis for the SEIR underwent a major change in levels of service (LOS), and measures are identified that the forecast year is 2030, rather than 2025 as used in for mitigating significant impacts on the roadway net- the FEIR. As a result of the new forecast year, new base work. Short-term construction-phase impacts are dis- year traffic counts, new modeling, updated demographic cussed in Section 4.18, Construction. data with ABAG projections and other assumptions, this Future transit patronage and vehicular traffic section has been updated since the FEIR. The regulatory volumes were developed using an enhanced version of setting did not change from the FEIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Vta Replacement Parking Study
    Santa Teresa Station PREPARED FOR METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION VTA REPLACEMENT PARKING STUDY FINAL REPORT Smart Growth Technical Assistance Task Order 4-11 EISEN| LETUNIC TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENTAL MARCH 2012 AND URBAN PLANNING VTA Replacement Parking Study Metropolitan Transportation Commission Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1-1 2 Parking Demand Analysis ...............................................................................................2-1 Observed Parking Demand ................................................................................................................. 2-1 Modeled Parking Demand ................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 Scenario Analysis ............................................................................................................3-1 4 Recommended Replacement Parking Policy ....................................................................4-1 Guiding Principles .................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Station-Specific Replacement Parking Analysis ............................................................................... 4-2 Table of Figures
    [Show full text]
  • Grading California's Rail Transit Sta on Areas Appendix LEGEND
    ! Grading California's Rail Transit Sta3on Areas Appendix LEGEND: CONTENTS: Group 1 - Residen<al • BART Final Scores • LA Metro Final Scores Group 2 - Mixed • Sacramento RT Final Scores • San Diego MTS Final Scores • San Francisco MUNI Final Scores Group 3 - Employment • Santa Clara VTA Final Scores A+ 95% A 80% A- 75% B+ 70% B 55% B- 50% C+ 45% C 30% C- 25% D+ 20% D 5% D- 2% F below 2% Appendix | www.next10.org/transit-scorecard Next 10 ! BART FINAL SCORES AVERAGE: C Final City Line Sta3on Raw Score Grade San SFO-MILLBRAE Civic Center/UN Plaza BART 90.60 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE Montgomery St. BART 88.20 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE 24th St. Mission BART 87.30 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE 16th St. Mission BART 84.30 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE Powell St. BART 84.10 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE Embarcadero BART 83.80 A Francisco Oakland FREMONT Lake Merri] BART 77.60 A DUBLIN/PLEASANTON Berkeley Downtown Berkeley BART 74.50 A TO DALY CITY Berkeley RICHMOND Ashby BART 75.30 A- Berkeley RICHMOND North Berkeley BART 74.30 A- San SFO-MILLBRAE Glen Park BART 74.10 A- Francisco Oakland FREMONT Fruitvale BART 73.50 A- Oakland SFO-MILLBRAE 19th St. Oakland BART 72.90 B+ San SFO-MILLBRAE Balboa Park BART 69.80 B+ Francisco 12th St. Oakland City Center Oakland SFO-MILLBRAE 71.70 B BART Contra Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Costa SFO-MILLBRAE 66.20 B Centre BART Centre Appendix | www.next10.org/transit-scorecard Next 10 ! Oakland PITTSBURG/BAY POINT MacArthur BART 65.70 B Fremont FREMONT Fremont BART 64.20 B El Cerrito RICHMOND El Cerrito Plaza
    [Show full text]
  • Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Menlo Park Fire Protection District, CA
    Menlo Park Fire Protection District California COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT: STANDARDS OF C2019OVER Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Menlo Park Fire Protection District, CA Introduction The following report serves as the Menlo Park Fire Protection District’s Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover. It follows the Center for Fire Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) 6th Edition Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover model that develops written procedures to determine the distribution and concentration of a fire and emergency service agency’s fixed and mobile resources. The purpose of completing such a document is to assist the agency in ensuring a safe and effective response force for fire suppression, emergency medical services, and specialty response situations. Creating a Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover document requires that a number of areas be researched, studied, and evaluated. This report will begin with an overview of both the community and the agency. Following this overview, the plan will discuss areas such as risk assessment, critical task analysis, agency service-level objectives, and distribution and concentration measures. The report will provide an analysis of historical performance and will conclude with policy and operational recommendations. ESCI extends its appreciation to the elected officials, business members, and community members of the District and the cities they protect, the members of the Fire District, and all others who contributed to this plan. Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board of Directors Robert Jones President Jim McLaughlin Vice President Chick Bernstein Director Virginia Chang Kiraly Director Rob Silano Director PAGE i Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Menlo Park Fire Protection District, CA Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................i Table of Contents ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco to San Jose Project Section
    California High-Speed Rail Authority San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Deliberative and Confidential Draft Draft Historic Architectural Survey Report May 2019 Table of Contents Deliberative and Confidential Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................1-1 1.1 Section 106 and CEQA Cultural Resources ............................................... 1-3 1.2 CEQA-Only Cultural Resources ................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Properties in the Area of Potential Effects that Require Phased Identification ............................................................................................... 1-4 2 REGULATORY SETTING .....................................................................................2-1 2.1 National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) ................ 2-1 2.1.1 Implementing Regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 C.F.R. Part 800) ............................. 2-1 2.2 National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................. 2-2 2.3 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 303) ..... 2-2 2.4 California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Public Res. Code § 21083.2) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5) ........ 2-3 2.5 California Register of Historical Resources (Cal. Public Res. Code § 5024.1 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 4850) .............................................
    [Show full text]