Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
05 May 8, 2019 Commission
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside COMMISSIONERS Chair — Chuck Washington Vice Chair — Ben J. Benoit Second Vice Chair — Jan Harnik Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District 1 Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District 2 Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District 3 V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District 4 Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District 5 Art Welch / Daniela Andrade, City of Banning Lloyd White / Julio Martinez, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Johnny Rodriguez, City of Blythe Larry Smith / Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa Randall Bonner / Jeremy Smith, City of Canyon Lake Raymond Gregory / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Megan Beaman Jacinto, City of Coachella Wes Speake / Jim Steiner, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Clint Lorimore / Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa / Russ Brown, City of Hemet Dana Reed / To Be Appointed, City of Indian Wells Waymond Fermon / Oscar Ortiz, City of Indio Brian Berkson / Chris Barajas, City of Jurupa Valley Kathleen Fitzpatrick / Robert Radi, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Bill Zimmerman / Dean Deines, City of Menifee Victoria Baca / Carla Thornton, City of Moreno Valley Scott Vinton / Randon Lane, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert Lisa Middleton / Jon R. Roberts, City of Palm Springs Michael M. Vargas / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Ted Weill / Charles Townsend, City of Rancho Mirage Rusty Bailey / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / Russ Utz, City of San Jacinto Michael S. Naggar / Maryann Edwards, City of Temecula Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar Mike Beauchamp, Governor's Appointee Caltrans District 8 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, May 8, 2019 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three -minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda May 8, 2019 Page 2 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 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 31 WORKSHOP AND APRIL 10, 2019 7. PUBLIC HEARING — ADOPT TWO RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FEE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN ALL OR PORTIONS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 305-050-051 AND 305-050-055 (CPNS 1009 AND 1010), AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 305-060-010 (CPN 1012), LOCATED IN PERRIS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 215 AND PLACENTIA AVENUE, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of resolutions of necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected properties and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the resolutions of necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. 3) Adopt Resolutions of Necessity Nos. 19-005 and 19-006, "Resolutions of Necessity for the Acquisition of Fee and Temporary Construction Easement Interests in All or Portions of Certain Real Property, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel Nos. 305-050-051 and 305-050-055 (CPNS 1009 and 1010), and Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-010 (CPN 1012), located in Perris, Riverside County, California," for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, in Riverside County, California. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda May 8, 2019 Page 3 8. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 31 1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the proposed Fiscal Year 2019/20 Budget; and 2) Open the public hearing in order to receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2019/20 Budget on May 8 and on June 12, 2019, and thereafter close the public hearing. 9. 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. 9A. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Page 53 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3, 2018 (3Q 2018). 9B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2019. 9C. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following bill position: a) AB 456 (Chiu, Bonta, Low) — Oppose; and 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. Page 62 Page 64 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda May 8, 2019 Page 4 9D. AGREEMENT WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE COMPLETION OF PROJECT APPROVAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT -SOUTHERN EXTENSION Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 19-31-025-00 to HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to provide preliminary engineering and environmental analysis services for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project - Southern Extension (1-15 ELPSE), in the amount of $26,320,011, plus a contingency amount of $2,632,001, for a total amount not to exceed $28,952,012; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work as may be required for the Project. 9E. AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE 15/91 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT DESIGN -BUILD PHASE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 172 1) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-067-00 with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for reimbursement for closure of the OCTA 91 Express Lanes in support of the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector Project (15/91 ELC) in the amount of $398,000, plus a contingency amount of $39,000, for a total amount not to exceed $437,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the project; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve future non -funding amendments to this agreement. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda May 8, 2019 Page 5 9F. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM FUNDS FOR EXPANDED PERRIS VALLEY LINE SERVICE Page 183 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 19-007, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Authorization for the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program for the Expanded Perris Valley Line Fiscal Year 2018/19 Funds Project in the Amount of $1,496,728." 9G. FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SUPERVISION Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 187 1) Approve Agreement No. 19-45-063-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County for a three-year term in an amount not to exceed $3,002,629; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 10. QUARTERLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS REPORT, JANUARY — MARCH 2O19 Page 203 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Report for January — March 2019. 11. STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES PROJECT PUBLIC OUTREACH UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to oral report on the public outreach efforts for the State Route 60 Truck Lanes project. 12. APPROVAL OF THE LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Page 210 Page 211 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda May 8, 2019 Page 6 13. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 14. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 15. CLOSED SESSION 15A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Item APN(s) Property Owner Buyer(s) 1 117-070-032 RCTC Pravin Kumar 2 117-122-001 and 117-122-002 RCTC Pravin Kumar 3 117-270-009 RCTC Maple Associates 16. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, June 12, 2019, Board Room, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 6 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, January 31, 2019 The Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop was called to order by Chair Chuck Washington at 1:06 p.m., at the Temecula Creek Inn, 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road, Temecula, California. Commissioners/Alternates Present Rusty Bailey Ben J. Benoit Brian Berkson Randall Bonner Joseph DeConinck Waymond Fermon Kathleen Fitzpatrick Jan Harnik Berwin Hanna Steven Hernandez* Jeff Hewitt Jim Hyatt Kevin Jeffries Andrew Kotyuk Linda Krupa Bob Magee Scott Matas Lisa Middleton Michael Naggar V. Manuel Perez* Catalino Pining Dana Reed Wes Speake Karen Spiegel Chuck Washington Art Welch Lloyd White Michael M. Vargas Scott Vinton Commissioners Absent Victoria Baca Clint Lorimore Ted Weill Bill Zimmerman City of Cathedral City *Arrived after meeting was called to order WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Chair Washington welcomed and thanked the Commissioners for their attendance and provided an overview of the January 31 workshop. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, presented the workshop overview, highlighting the following areas: • The Commission needs a vision and to change the transportation network system • The RCTC team under the Commission's leadership has the talent and responsibility to provide recommendations on the strategy and specific projects that will fulfill the long term vision • A map depicting priorities: project delivery in Riverside County • A photo depicting the highways for National Defense when the Interstate system was originally envisioned by President Eisenhower Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 2 • Challenges and opportunities — the challenge today and the requirement of modern infrastructure is to move our $20 trillion national economy; which includes one of its fastest growing regions in Riverside County: o Economic factors: International trade at the Ports and the Borders; retail commerce both brick and mortar and on line; affordability in housing; and employment • We're Growing — Riverside County is the fastest growing County in California in 2018 • A Press -Enterprise photo depicting heavy traffic on the freeway — It shifts the conversation to how can the Commission build a transportation system that grows jobs here • Before and after SB 1 Local Streets and Roads (LSR) Revenues in Riverside County, which is approximately a 90 percent increase in every cities in the County for LSR funding • Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys cities funding received before and after SB 1 • Western Riverside County cities funding received before and after SB 1 • A Riverside County map for the 2018 State Highway Operation and Protection (SHOPP) Program Caltrans will be investing $840 million over the next six years in rehabilitation and operation improvements Anne Mayer expressed this Commission made the right request last year making a difficult decision to oppose Proposition 6 and protect this investment. She stated SB 1 and Measure A are strong foundations upon which the Commission can build towards the future, however, the Commission cannot build its way out of congestion. Anne Mayer expressed building for the future and focusing on an overarching goal of bringing jobs and keeping jobs here. She then listed the topics for discussion at the workshop and expressed needing the Commissions leadership to achieve that goal for 2019. At this time, Chair Washington requested a moment of silence in honor of Commissioner Greg Pettis who passed away. DISADVANTAGE COMMUNITIES AND ITS IMPACT ON STATE GRANTS At this time, Anne Mayer welcomed and introduced Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Executive Director Tom Kirk to present disadvantaged communities and its impact on state grants. Tom Kirk presented transportation and transportation that benefited disadvantaged communities, highlighting the following areas: • Transportation and the linkage to affordable housing objectives are not met as the SB 1 dollars are being held by the state • The Desert Sun Article — Newsom leaps headfirst into state housing crisis • Legislative Platform: Support maintaining the legislative intent behind SB 1, including, but not limited to: Opposing efforts to tie distribution of transportation funding to ancillary policy matters, such as housing Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 3 • Cap & Trade — The Commission and CVAG linking to affordable housing and Sustainable Communities Program: o So how is Riverside County in this housing -transport linked program relationship and funding: $667 million statewide; Riverside County's fair share would be $41 million; Riverside County's actual share is $6 million; and the Coachella Valley's actual share is $0 • Cap & Trade Transformative Climate Communities (TCC): Fresno received $70 million and Los Angeles and Ontario received $35 million • TCC targets disadvantage communities, which CVAG believed was great for the Coachella Valley • Between Coachella Valley and Blythe there are 126 census tracts 86 of them are at or below the federal poverty level • A long spreadsheet was displayed with the new math for disadvantaged communities in the state of California of the top 25 percent • How is the CalEnvironscreen Scored: Pollution burden x population characteristics = Environscreen score — CalEnviroscreen only says part of Indio one census tract, part of Coachella and the North Shore one census tract in Blythe are disadvantaged • TCC Planning gave $170,000 grant money in Coachella to plan for the bigger dollars, however the state said they cannot compete as it is not bad enough and only goes to the top five percent • Although there are disadvantaged communities in Indio, Palm Desert, and in La Quinta and they cannot apply for those grant funds as these cities do not do poorly enough with new math in the state of California • A map that depicts the six interchanges in the Coachella Valley that CVAG funded in partnership with the Commission, Ca!trans, and local cities none of those are what the state would consider disadvantaged communities • A map depicting the areas if CalEnvironscreen used or affordable housing for people that live in Coachella Valley • Why is this a pressing issue — Certainly Riverside County is not getting the money that is deserved; CVAG is working with Assemblyman Edward Garcia to make some fixes and to focus also on income THE FIRST HALF OF 2019 — WHAT'S ON THE HORIZON? John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, presented the RCTC look ahead for the first half of 2019 and what's on the horizon, highlighting the following: • January 2019 —1-215 Placentia Interchange project; approval of Legislative Platform; one year anniversary of the start of Route 200; and Active Transportation Grant awards • February 2019 — Sound walls on 1-15; State Grant decision on Coachella Valley Rail; Riverside/La Sierra Metrolink station improvement; and Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Workshop Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 4 • March 2019 - #rebootmyCOMMUTE; 91 Express Lanes 2nd anniversary; 91 Express Lanes new customer service office; Truck Study update; Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant submittal seeking $75 million in Federal funding • April 2019 — RCTC VanClub 1st anniversary • May 2019: Rebuilding California SB 1 — Environmental work begins: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension; 1-15 Railroad Canyon Interchange projects • May 2019 — Complete Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) • June 2019 — Adoption of FY 2019/20 Budget; adoption of SRTPs; launch design -build procurement process 15/91 Express Lanes Connector; updating transponder technology; 91 Implementation Plan update • Summer 2019 — Call Box optimization; 60 Truck Lanes project construction begins; Pachappa Bridge project construction bids opening; and 1-15 Express Lanes project — 50 percent construction milestone Commissioner Michael Naggar explained how the city of Temecula (Temecula) put in an application for the INFRA Grant and it was turned down and Temecula is submitting again as is the Commission. He stated that Temecula and the Commission has the same goals and asked if there has been any consideration to collaborate on that grant. Anne Mayer explained when there has been a federal or a statewide grant opportunity the Commission puts forward the projects that are much larger, more regionally focused and the most competitive, which is the Commission's primary focus. She discussed why the agencies could not combine all submittals in Riverside County for the grant proposals and how the Commission will continue to submit its project priorities per Measure A. In response to Commissioner Naggar's inquiry if the French Valley Parkway is included in the INFRA Grant, Anne Mayer replied no. She stated the INFRA Grant proposal the Commission is going forward with is a bundle related to the 91 Corridor and the Commission is asking for $75 million to compliment an overall program of $400 million. She discussed the last round that was formerly called Build Discretionary Grant when the 71/91 interchange was submitted for funding and discussed the debrief from the U.S. Department of Transportation. She noted the bundle of projects related to the 91 Corridor the Commission is submitting is geographically focused, they are projects ready to go and has a huge sum of power money as a part of the package. She discussed the status of the French Valley Parkway project as Phase II is fully funded and encouraged city staff to submit Phase III as part of the cities' proposal. She stated staff is not asking the Commissioners to establish priorities, but to set the path forward so staff can establish all those priorities for the next 10 years of the sales tax measure. In response to Commissioner Naggar's inquiry about the workshop agenda, Anne Mayer replied from 4:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. the Commission will be discussing priorities for 2019 and beyond and staff has a presentation that will layout the challenges over the next 10 years and there will be a proposed path to identify the next steps. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 5 In response to Commissioner Naggar's inquiry in John Standiford's presentation on the projects that are about to start as the French Valley Parkway project was left out, Anne Mayer replied the calendar Mr. Standiford provided was only a snap shot of the first six months of this year. Commissioner Rusty Bailey noted there are a couple active transportation projects that connect a number of cities. The bottom line is the Santa Ana River Trail connects a number of cities and the Commission has assisted with project management at the start to suffice at least five or six cities. Commissioner Bailey stated OCTA should be part of 91 corridor discussions and or plan since there is so much opportunity there with electric scooters and electric bikes, which is something the Commission has not had an update on in a while. He suggested having more updates even for CV Link and keep watching the active transportation feature as it was mentioned there are grants out there and the Commission needs to continue on that route. Commissioner Karen Spiegel expressed gratitude when Anne Mayer was talking about a vision and the change in conversation. She took focus on John Standiford's presentation and in going through the Commission briefing book and the staff insider, she suggested it does not address the change of that conversation or at least the beginning stages and this is the first six months of the year. Commissioner Spiegel expressed the Commission needs to jump on this whether it is to create an ad hoc committee, which she wants to be a member. Anne Mayer stated clearly staff should have started with the last presentation first. She expressed being delighted with the enthusiasm and desire to discuss this and her comments at the beginning were to provide an overview of some of the conversations to come. Anne Mayer explained staff is trying to share with the Commissioners enough background information so there is a full understanding of what is being discussed. She suggested getting through the next couple of agenda items and then the Commission can have that conversation. Commissioner Spiegel stated she will be listening closely since she wants to discuss the Measure A and hopes there will be something different, as that is not the kind of vision the Commission should necessarily focus on. Anne Mayer noted the voter mandate that the Commission must review Measure A. Commissioner Spiegel suggested having a bigger vision on changing the vision of how the Commission looks at transportation and time it into economic development, which is a conversation not being addressed for the sales tax increase. Anne Mayer clarified there will be a presentation at 4:00 p.m. about the Priorities for 2019 & Beyond. PUBLIC TRANSIT ISSUES TODAY AND WHAT IS THE FUTURE At this time, Commissioner Kevin Jeffries left the meeting and Commissioner V. Manuel Perez joined the meeting. Lorelle Moe -Luna presented the public transit today and opportunities for the future, highlighting the following areas: • Pop quiz — 1) Who is the oldest Transit Operator in the County? 2) What percent of the population utilizes public transit in Riverside County? 3) Why were the STA, LTF, and Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 6 Measure A funding formulas established? 4) What did the SCAG/UCLA study determine to be the main reason for the decline in ridership in recent years? 5) What is the average subsidy per passenger for fixed -route bus and demand response? 6) Which mode/category has seen the highest increases in ridership? • RCTC's role in Public Transit — Development and approval of short-range transportation improvement program; and coordination and approval of public transit service within the County • Transportation Development Act of 1971 — Approve allocations to claimants based on analysis and evaluation of anticipated amounts and relative needs of each claimant; and Identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements • Eight public Transit Operators in Riverside County: o Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine); Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); Corona Cruiser; Riverside Special Transportation; Pass Transit; and Metrolink o Combined service areas total over 3,700 square miles; total county population of about 2.4 million o About 2 percent utilize public transit • Specialized Transit providers to non -profits in Riverside County • 2008 Transit Vision — Purpose: Foundation for a 10-year conceptual plan of transit service throughout the County • Five main goals: 1) Increase coordination with the Transit and Rideshare Community; 2) Remove barriers to transit use; 3) Provide efficient and effective transit and rideshare service; 4) Ensure adequate funding; and 5) Promote energy efficiency • 2088 Transit Vision — Funding Formulas for Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley • 10 years later: Annual revenue service hours increased 32 percent; over $27 million awarded to social service agencies for specialized transit programs; Expansion of 8 new intercity express routes; start of RTA's RapidLink Gold Line in 2017; Perris Valley Line (PVL) Metrolink extension in 2016; Metrolink added two now peak trains, weekend service, special event trains for the Festival of Lights; Better technology for customers such as RTA's BusWatch and the SunBus Tracker; SunLine awarded Cap -and -Trade funds for hydrogen -powered buses and hydrogen -generating station; IE Commuter was started to match carpoolers and offer incentives to rideshare; PVVTA started Blythe Wellness Express for specialized healthcare access; New Vanpool Programs created such as SunLine's SolVan and RCTC's VanClub; and Various marketing programs to attract new riders and growth markets • Ridership Trends — Bus: Ridership declined about 11 percent for fixed -routes, 7 percent demand response since Fiscal Year 2014 • Ridership Trends — Rail: Overall has remained about flat since FY 2014; and Metrolink ridership in Riverside County has increased about 9 percent since FY 2014, as a result of the PVL extension • Future growth opportunities: 1) Focus on more cost efficient service; 2) Transit agencies are already rethinking the way they deliver service to attract new riders; and 3) Leverage other regional investments Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 7 • Next steps: o Incorporate the next Transit Vision into the LRTP — The LRTP will: o Shape a vision for an integrated transportation system in Riverside County for the next 20 years, focus on the next 10 years o Take a comprehensive look at state highway, local streets, and transit projects o Allow the Commission and our local partners to better prioritize and compete for grants with a more multimodal and corridor approach o Update to be provided in the spring/early summer At this time, Commissioner Magee left the meeting. At this time, Commissioner Steven Hernandez joined the meeting. M/S/C (Reed/Welch) to: 1) Receive and file a report on the status of public transit; and 2) Direct staff to come back to the Commission by June 2019 with recommendations on any funding formula adjustments or transit policies that are needed to support public transit in Riverside County (County). Chair Washington noted there has been a schedule change. After the break when the workshop reconvenes the Commission will take the Priorities for 2019 & Beyond before What's Next for Express Lanes in Riverside County. Anne Mayer referred to the transit vision formula slide and explained the reason staff provided the Commission with this background information and when updating the LRTP the Commission is going to make tough decisions about how to make investments. She expressed transit ridership is declining and the Commission continues to invest more funding into transit in hopes if we build it they will come. Anne Mayer explained the Commission will need to decide what the goals and objectives are and how to invest in transit. She referred to the formulas on how much of transit funds are invested in bus and how much in specialized transit is invested in rail. At this time, Commissioner Art Welch left the meeting. Anne Mayer mentioned staff will spend the next six months evaluating the transit services, and seeking input from stakeholders. She stated for those Commissioners who want to share with staff immediately send her an email, staff will integrate a few stakeholder conversations with some great ideas and suggestions that were brought forward. She clarified transit ridership is down but it does not mean that all the transit agency partners are seeing a decline on ridership. PRIORITIES FOR 2019 & BEYOND Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director, presented the Priorities for 2019 & Beyond, highlighting the following: Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 8 • Why — Bringing new large employers to Riverside County and bringing the workplace closer to our workforce; is it supporting the tourism economy; or is it creating safer alternatives to today's transportation systems through embracing revolutionary technology or active transportation • A picture of the new California Air Resources Board facility coming to Riverside — Having more transportation facilities coming to Riverside to support employers such as this • What — 2019 Measure A review; 2019-2029 Western County Highway Delivery Plan; new projects, programs, initiatives beyond Measure A • A map of Western County projects and future projects — highlighted in green are completed projects, in blue projects that are in the construction phase, in red are projects that are near term, and in purple are the long term priority projects • How — Status quo/reduce expectations; innovative finance (express lanes) embrace new technology; next general express lanes, new measure (2020) • The financial climb — Western County Highway: $4+ billion in RCTC led -projects; Existing Western County Highway sources: $936 million (23 percent) thru 2029; and 73 percent restricted use; with a 2020 Measure the Commission could estimate receiving $3-6 billion Countywide • On the path to 2020: O 62 percent yes vote possible (ceiling) — 2017 public opinion research o Need 66.67 percent (gap of 4.67 percent) o Public Engagement Program is in motion, ramping -up o Public sentiment toward RCTC remains positive • #rebootmycommute — Another way to get the public's priorities • Future Funding Initiatives Ad Hoc Committee: 2019 Measure A review; 10-Year Western County Highway Plan; Countywide 2020 New Measure; and Innovative Finance review and recommend to the Commission the Countywide Priorities & Funding Strategy by July 2019 Anne Mayer explained frequently these conversations start with projects, the importance of how these projects make a connection between housing, transportation, jobs, and the economy. She stated the question is for the next 10 years of the measure how does the Commission deliver the right projects for the Commissioners' communities. The challenge offered now is to tell staff what you think, what is important and why is it important, and what should the Commission focus on. At this time, Chair Washington went through the list of all the ad hoc committee appointments from the 2019 Committee Appointments that was distributed to the Commissioners. Chair Washington stated the next step is to schedule a meeting of the Future Funding Initiatives (FFI) Ad Hoc Committee to get more detail and look at what is available, what projects are priorities, and how to fund these projects. Commissioner Wes Speake expressed making a change in tying transportation, housing, and economic development together. He stated addressing economic development is a way to take those transportation dollars, stretch them, and fill some gaps in the meantime. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 9 Chair Washington referred to the opening comments from Anne Mayer and expressed it is important to recognize there are some clean up issues from the 91 corridor that was pushed off so those have a priority. He stated the Commission has to focus on more internal circulation within Riverside County on how to create an infrastructure that promotes housing and economic development needs, and how to move people and goods. He expressed the Commission is in the best position in terms of a funding stream and as Anne Mayer mentioned if there are ways to bring outside dollars into Riverside County and free up the County funding the Commission would be better off. Chair Washington stated the Commission has to get those grant funds then leverage the remaining funds the Commission has, and set up the Commission's priority projects. Anne Mayer discussed how this workshop was not intended to be about projects and setting priorities. She expressed staff is requesting what concerns the Commissioners have about the growth in Riverside County, how it impacts their communities, and what is your future vision in order to come up with a future plan. Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk stated he is coming from different perspectives to address that issue and to address the FFI Ad Hoc Committee to consider, which is finance and rail being Metrolink. He suggested three scenarios, which is: 1) when there is a recession what are the priorities, 2) if it stays status quo what are the priorities, and 3) if things continue to grow and expand and revenues continues to increase what are the priorities. Commissioner Kotyuk discussed from a rail standpoint about Metrolink the environmental and connection issues amongst the counties. He expressed concern about the many lawsuits on the city of San Jacinto Measure A projects so their projects have not happened while their community contributed to Measure A. He requested that many of the large projects in San Jacinto be looked at that were part of the original Measure A and break them up in segments to gradually keep the voters and supporters behind Measure A moving forward. Commissioner Dana Reed stated Riverside County is the new Orange County as it is growing and Orange County is the same in terms of population growth. He expressed the population growth will go higher and all the housing is already permitted and not to mention those that are not yet permitted. He explained the voters of Los Angeles County had chosen to take two cents so every taxable sale goes to transportation and the Commission is at a half -cent sales tax. Commissioner Reed expressed Riverside County is at the very low end of participation and self-help planning due to only having a half -cent sales tax. Commissioner Naggar expressed appreciation for Commissioner Reed's comments and referred to Commissioner Speake's comment about sticking to status quo, to develop the Commission's plans around economic development and housing. Commissioner Naggar discussed several reasons why he is advocating for the French Valley Parkway project Phase III since this project is important to the cities of Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula, and Wildomar. He expressed this is a tourism, employment, and housing base and it needs to be looked at as all the cities mentioned are affected. He expressed support for an additional tax measure for Measure A and noted it is the Commission's obligation to educate the voters. He mentioned the toll roads are producing $48 million, which is a great revenue source to keep or dedicate it for that area. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 10 Commissioner Jan Harnik expressed appreciation for the Commissioners' comments and for the fact the Commission might have to shape up the status quo. There are communities that have issues that need to be remedied in the Coachella Valley that have no proper transportation. Commissioner Harnik stated there are different needs in Coachella Valley as there is too much congestion when people are going to their tourist events. She suggested taking a step back, getting bold, shaking this up, the Commission has to drive the discussion and the building whether it is homes or jobs. Commissioner Jim Hyatt explained living in the Pass Area in the city of Calimesa and how the cities of Beaumont and Banning will have 20,000+ homes built in the next 15 years. He expressed the SR-60 Truck Lanes project is not necessary and noted he mentioned it at the 2018 Commission Annual Workshop. He discussed his meeting with former Caltrans District Director John Bulinski and San Bernardino about the issues with 1-10. Commissioner Hyatt expressed concern his engineer and San Bernardino verified there is practically no way to add another lane in the Pass Area. He suggested the Commission improves lanes on SR-60 at 1-10 that connects westbound due to the truck traffic in addition to improving 1-10/SR-60 interchange or the cities of Beaumont, Banning, and Calimesa will be in terrible shape. Commissioner Hyatt suggested the Nexus Study cover other roads such as Live Oak Canyon to Redlands Boulevard and form a committee with San Bernardino, as the Commission needs that connection. Anne Mayer expressed there will be significant growth in the Pass Area and the infrastructure system cannot handle it. She explained there are projects included in the Expenditure Plan developed in 1999 and in 2019, and the Commission is responsible to re-evaluate the Expenditure Plan. She asked the Commissioners if the projects in Measure A still apply to their objectives trying to be achieved. Commissioner Steven Hernandez suggested evaluating the long-term impacts on the economy with respect to some of the Commission's transportation projects and what these projects will do long term for the economy. There are new houses coming in and he suggested if there should be criteria to look at how to keep commuters closer to home instead of commuting to their jobs. He requested looking at what the long-term impacts are on the economy on all these projects that need funding but expressed long term it is just a bridge that may not be doing anything for people staying closer to home and working closer to home. Commissioner Lloyd White stated wanting to build on the Pass Area with a different twist. He explained the Commission is in a very reactive mode, and there have been problems with the Pass Area for years and as Commissioner Hyatt mentioned there are over 21,000 new homes. Commissioner White expressed the Pass Area becomes a choke point that affects the Pass Area and Coachella Valley, it is going to affect the transportation logistics with the warehouses and the job growth logistics have been significant. He discussed the mitigation fee analysis for the World Logistic Center that impacts I-10 to Coachella Valley. He expressed concern there were no members from the Pass Area on the FFI Ad Hoc Committee. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 11 Commissioner Ben Benoit concurred the Commission needs to look in a different direction as it is not necessarily the problem with freeways it is mainly the infrastructure needing a two-lane road. Commissioner Benoit stated if the city of Wildomar creates a job center in Menifee, Wildomar, and Murrieta that is more an east to west connectivity without improving local roads would bring his city to attract a larger community and a larger office tower. Commissioner Benoit suggested focusing on where there is a double standard as there will be future impacts on the I- 15 corridor central portion, which is one of the projects going forward. He requested if possible, there are some dedicated on ramps and off ramps such as the city of Calimesa on SR-60 as they have similar issues in the city of Wildomar in parts of that area including Bundy Canyon due to high fatality risk rates. He stated this would help create these local business centers in these cities to bring in some of those Orange County businesses. Commissioner Rusty Bailey concurred with Commissioners Benoit and Commissioner Harnik's comments and the proactive nature of looking long term. He stated where does it make sense to build up and what are the incentives for a city to build up since it will create more traffic and an impasse. Commissioner Bailey expressed just the nature is what we are in is to pay as you go. Aaron Hake replied the Commission could not bond anymore but that is how it has acquired the projects the Commission has today. Commissioner Bailey clarified the Commission is reacting to the impacts as TUMF might be a little more proactive, in the future how can the Commission incentivize cities to build that tower knowing there will be all those impacts. He concurred in terms of the Nexus Study between transportation and urban, mid -county, and eastern portion housing. At this time, Commissioner Scott Matas left the meeting. Commissioner Karen Spiegel explained the jobs in Los Angeles and Orange Counties pay more, people move out to Riverside County to buy a bigger home, and they choose to drive in and expect the cities to fix that problem. She suggested to collaborate and bring that philosophy of businesses out this way, as the cities tend to build the houses first and then the infrastructure. Commissioner Spiegel expressed each city has issues but the Commission needs to provide where the energy should be focused, which is how to find that partnership. She expressed priorities are important and referred to Anne Mayer's comment what is the why and what are we trying to accomplish. She suggested the Commission must think outside that box and get the vision and work together to be more successful. She stated the key piece missing and the state is missing is economic development, which needs to be tied to transportation. Commissioner Middleton expressed this is not only a Riverside County issue it is a Southern California regional issue of how to get people from one place to another. She suggested there is something else to look at, which is when people get home what is the safety around the streets. She stated is there an infrastructure of streets that makes it safe for people to walk, or to use bicycles to get from one place to another and largely there is not. It is apparent if the Commission wants to engage millennial voters the Commission needs to get the opportunity if they are voting Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 12 to get more dedicated bike lanes, which will be safe. She suggested lowering the speed limits in the cities in order to save lives. Commissioner Hewitt discussed how the Governor's plan is to build more houses and legislation that will circumvent CEQA. He expressed support for the Mid County Parkway project, which will open up Hidden Valley, San Jacinto, Hemet, the bypass, and the intersections at Cherry Valley and Highland Springs, where SR-79 meets up as all these projects are important. He stated Riverside County will be the second largest county in 15-20 years and the Commission needs to start thinking outside the box as this body can do some amazing things. Commissioner Linda Krupa stated discussed the importance and impact of jobs. She discussed the reasons for increased traffic at SR-79 and San Jacinto Valley and the two city streets Warren Road and San Jacinto Street that takes the increased traffic and has more accidents. She supports all the projects the Commission completed and for all the comments made. She expressed being project specific on the SR-79 Realignment project, which is why it has been very detrimental to the San Jacinto Valley and the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. Commissioner Harnik expressed appreciation for Commissioner Spiegel's comments and stated when looking specifically at Coachella Valley it is primarily east and west so it is critical the Commission works together for the best result. She suggested occasionally it is not widening the streets it is about technology that can get the Commission there and she referred to Page 10 of the staff report about improving traffic flow and reduce congestion on Highway 111, which does not need to be a great amount of construction done. She suggested traffic signal synchronization, which is being driven as technology can go a long way in order to move things at a better rate. Commissioner Vinton concurred with the Commissioners' comments about the community and Western Riverside County is a commuting population. He suggested bringing in more paying jobs in order to help that however it is up to the cities to look at regionally. He expressed support for the French Valley Parkway Phase III project to alleviate some of that traffic. He inquired on the dollar amounts mentioned that the additional measure could bring in. Aaron Hake replied that would be the low end of what that half -cent can bring in over 20 years in the Commission's original estimation. He stated the Commission's legislative authority from the Governor and the Legislature is for another half -cent for what Measure A currently is. Commissioner Wes Speake stated in speaking to the Corona City Council and the Economic Development Department any business established in Riverside County east and south of Corona is good for the city of Corona. It is a regional solution as the entire western part of the county funnels through one freeway and the projects occurring in the city of Corona are for the County. He expressed Economic Development has to be a part of this and how to look at land use in each city is a regional issue. Chair Washington pointed out how the city of Irvine is one of the best places to live in the Country and 60 percent of the people leave town every day to work somewhere else. He expressed as long as the quality of life bar is raised in the communities people will want to live there for having Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 13 safe communities and great schools. Chair Washington stated the more popular that community becomes there is more pressure on home values. He expressed recognizing the problem is transportation and infrastructure, which the Commission is trying to resolve and be creative. Commissioner Naggar provided comments on behalf of Commissioner Bob Magee's request. Commission Magee expressed support for the 1-15 Task Force efforts goal, which is to improve mobility from Cajalco Road to San Diego County Line and this needs to be one of the Commission's priorities for 2019 and beyond. M/S/C (Bailey/Hyatt) to: 1) Receive and file the RCTC Staff Insight Brief; 3) Assign the Future Funding Initiatives ad hoc Committee to thoroughly vet and make specific recommendations to the Commission no later than July 2019 on the following: a. Measure A Expenditure Plan Review and update; b. 2019-2029 Western County Highway Delivery Plan; c. A new local funding measure for the 2020 general election; and d. Innovative financing of express lanes revenues. At this time, Anne Mayer explained the Commission needs to approve staff recommendation no. 2, due to the urgency for the timeline on this project. This action item is related to the 15/91 Express Lane Connector project, which connects SR-91 with 1-15 north. Staff will come back to the Commission early 2020 with a contract award and final cost. She stated the range of the project cost is $200 - $230 million and the revenues used will be excess toll revenues from the 91 Express Lanes. In response to Commissioner Vinton's inquiry, Anne Mayer replied southbound 1-15 to westbound SR-91, to eastbound SR-91 to northbound 1-15. That connector was not built with the original project, as there was not enough money so it was pulled out of the original project. She explained it was not put in the 1-15 project, as there was not enough money to build it so the Commission was given $180 million from the state and a deadline to spend the money and have the project built by June 30, 2023. She stated there is a sense of urgency related to the project delivery and putting this request for qualifications out on the street. In response to Commissioner Speake's clarification if this is the access toll revenue pulled, Anne Mayer replied if the Commission needs the full amount and there is no other funding source it would use a great deal of the surplus toll revenue. She explained as it was mentioned the Commission is submitting an INFRA Grant request to the Federal Department of Transportation for all three of the projects on the 91 Corridor to fully fund those then those projects will be dealt with different funding types. Anne Mayer expressed the Commission has sufficient expectations related to all fund types that this project and the 91 Corridor Operations project between Green River and SR-241 can be funded. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 14 M/S/C (Naggar/Hanna) to: 2) Commit necessary 91 Express Lanes toll revenue to fully fund the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector design -build phase; At this time, Commissioner Hyatt left the meeting. WHAT'S NEXT FOR EXPRESS LANES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, presented what's next for express lanes in Riverside County, highlighting the following areas: • A map depicting the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector project • The 91 experience — 91 Express Lanes FY 2017/18 volume: Over 14.5 million annual customers used the 91 Express Lanes, 3.2 million carpool trips, which averages to about 40,000 daily customers use the 91 Express Lanes and $47.9 million was generated • Why pursue Express Lanes: o Limited state and federal funding o Erosion of federal gas tax o Significant but finite Measure A funding o Continued increase in people, households, and jobs o Very limited freeway expansion plans by state — operational improvements, maintaining the existing system • Trends: 2006 and Now: o Use of single -occupant vehicles o Long-term jobs -housing imbalance o Continued demand for less congested alternatives o Willingness of Riverside County residents to pay a toll for travel benefits • Should we develop Express Lanes: o Deliver improvements sooner due to toll funding o 91 and 15 Projects toll revenue -backed financing: 91 Project = $598 million and 15 project = 152 million o Construct improvements not otherwise possible o Portion of 91 corridor general purpose lane improvements o New express lanes in both corridors o Express Lanes have brought $750 million to Riverside County Transportation Commission • New Choices for solo drivers: o Pay a toll for travel benefits o Travel time certainty and savings o Use when you want: Daily commuter; occasional/weekend trip; and critical trip • Meet Measure A Voter Commitments: o Voter Commitment —1-15: One lane/direction: SR-60 to San Diego County Line o Projects Underway: 1-15 Express Lanes (SR-60 to Cajalco): two lanes/direction; and 1-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension (Cajalco to SR-74): two lanes/direction Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 15 o Reduced Measure A contribution to 1-15: Spend on other Measure A projects • Meet Other Transportation Needs: o Corridor improvements not in Measure A: Recommended improvements to follow o Surplus toll revenue: Metrolink stations and service; freeway lanes and interchanges; recreational trail system; and express lane improvements • Capitalize on the Investments Already Made: o $1.9 +/- billion investment made in 91 and 15 corridors: Express lane backbone in place; and Toll building purchase for long-term operations o Extend express lane network south and east: More Riverside County residents can benefit o Build on Success: 91 Express Lanes successful opening; and 15 Express Lanes to open next year • Enables More Transit: o Express lane construction also provides transit infrastructure: No additional cost for express bus, van pool o RTA express bus Route 200 uses the 91 Express Lanes: Operating since January 2018: January: 385 boardings/day December: 625 boardings/day (+62%); and 171,000 annual boardings o RCTC Van pool program — (VanClub) • Improve All Lanes: o Allow Carpool and General Purpose (GP) lanes to work better: Add new lane capacity; and every car in the express lanes = one less care in the GP lanes o Raise occupancy requirement to 3+: Ensures carpool demand does not break down the carpool lane o Variable tolls manage demand ensuring free -flow express lanes: More cars moved, less congestion and delay in express lanes • Degraded Carpool Lanes with a graph on the new express lane corridors: O 2017 Caltrans Report: Degraded locations o New express lane corridors • Pay Operations and Maintenance Cost: o No funded obligations for RCTC or Caltrans — 50 years of O&M costs paid via tolls o Ensures well -maintained express lanes for customers: RCTC provides funding and ensure maintenance; and both annual and long-term rehabilitation maintenance • Initial Backbone and the Network Expansion: o We've done this before: 2005-2006 toll feasibility work; and Prioritization of 91 and 15 corridors O 2009-2019 Delivery Plan: Prioritization of Measure A projects o Where should the expansion occur? At this time, Michael Blomquist welcomed and introduced Greg Hulsizer, HNTB Project Manager to present where should the Commission expand the express lanes. Greg Hulsizer presented if the Commission were to develop future express lanes where would they be, and highlighted the following: Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 16 • Study Methodology: Workshop -based approach • Four Tasks: 1) Identify key criteria and assumptions; 2) Screening analysis and tiered rankings of potential facilities; 3) Detailed analysis of top tier facilities; and 4) Establishment of overall feasibility • Key Criteria and Assumptions • 16 Potential Corridors — List of Corridors for RCTC Next Generation Tolling Study and a map that depicts 32 different options for the potential corridors with express lanes in two different directions for consideration • Top Tier Corridors: O 91 Downtown Riverside: SR-91 from 1-15 to SR-91/I-215/SR-60 Interchange O 60 Jurupa-Riverside: SR-60 from 1-15 to SR-91/I-215/SR-60 Interchange O 60 Riverside -Moreno Valley: I-215/SR-60 from SR-91/I-215/SR-60 Interchange to Gilman Springs Road O 60/215 Riverside -Moreno Valley: SR-60/I-215 from SR-91/I-215/SR-60 Interchange to Gilman Springs Road; and SR-60/I-215 East Junction to Van Buren Boulevard • A map that depicts the Top Tier Corridors map • 91 Downtown Riverside: 14 miles (1-15 to SR-60) O 1 lane in each direction o Convert 1-HOV to 1-Express Lane o Minimal right of way impacts • Capital cost: $184 million • 60 Jurupa-Riverside: 10 Miles (1-15 to 1-215) O 2 lanes in each direction o Convert 1-HOV and add 1 lane for 2-Express Lanes • Capital Cost: $508 million • 60 Riverside -Moreno Valley: 5 miles (I-215/SR-60); 10 miles (SR-60) O 1 lane in each direction o Convert 1-HOV to 1-Express Lane in each direction • Capital Cost: $128 million • 60/215 Riverside -Moreno Valley: 5 miles (I-215/SR-60); 10 miles (SR-60); 4 miles (1-215) O 2 lanes in each direction portion O 1 lane in each direction portions o Convert 1-HOV and add 1 lane for 2-Express Lanes in each direction • Capital Cost: $319 million • Summary of Results — 35 Year Net Revenue Study for the top tier corridors • Finance ability and Feasibility Ranking for the top tier corridors - Ranking 1: 60/215 Riverside -Moreno Valley Corridor; Ranking 2: 60 Riverside -Moreno Valley Corridor; Ranking 3: 91 Downtown Riverside Corridor; and Ranking 4: 60 Jurupa-Riverside Corridor • Overall Feasibility and criteria that should be considered: Transportation Mobility; Financial Feasibility; Connectivity; Project Impacts; and Project Support and Schedule • Overall Feasibility Weighting: Transportation Mobility 35%; Financial Feasibility 30%; Connectivity 15%; Project Support and Schedule 10%; and Project Impacts 10% Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 17 • Overall Feasibility of Corridor Rankings: 1) 60/215 Riverside -Moreno Valley; 2) 91 Downtown Riverside; 3) 60 Riverside -Moreno Valley; and 4) 60 Jurupa-Riverside At this time, Greg Hulsizer turned it over to Michael Blomquist to present the most feasible corridors, highlighting the following areas: • What Project East of 60/215/91 Interchange? o GOLD = 60/215 Riverside Moreno Valley Express Lanes: 2 lanes/direction up to the 60/215 split o 1-215 improvement: more benefit — SR-60 to Van Buren Boulevard o Financially more feasible: Most feasible out of all four corridors • Next Steps: Prepare Project Initiation Documents: Project Initiation Document = Project Study Report o Establishes: 1) purpose and need statement; 2) project scope; and 3) cost and schedule o Major work on the SHS requires Caltrans-approved Project Initiation Document o Meets Statutory and CTC requirements for STIP-candidate projects In response to Commissioner Reed's clarification, Michael Blomquist replied the goal is all the green area as shown in the top tier corridors map, which is the portion down 1-215 and it is an additional lane from the big interchange in Riverside. He clarified it is from SR-91/SR-60/I-215 interchange in Riverside east it is two lanes in each direction as opposed to one lane in each direction to the East Junction. Commissioner Speake expressed appreciation there are openings and wanted to know if a zipper was factored in. He explained traveling to San Diego every week and seeing additional capacity especially in this area and on SR-91, and it is not going to slow down. He understands why it did not happen through SR-91 through Corona as there are no exits so having entrances, exits there will seem to lend itself, and it is something to be considered. Michael Blomquist clarified if he was referring to the proposed aerial system and stated it was looked at over the years not with that specifically part of the study. He discussed some of the challenges with that system. Commissioner Bailey stated that obviously staging and the phases of construction are important. He referred to the slide with the staff recommendation and stated 91 Downtown -Riverside was first so he is assuming it is in that order. Michael Blomquist replied it is not, there is no perceived order, one of the benefits of going to this next stage of development is further evaluate which one makes sense, and they would be constructing these all at the same time. Anne Mayer explained to be clear staff is proposing to proceed with one Project Study Report that looks at this as a system and all three of the proposed express lanes projects are not being evaluated independently. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 18 Michael Blomquist stated staff anticipates in the future should the Commission decide to advance these further after the initial step, eventually a priority will evolve in some way and staff will come back to the Commission with an update. Commissioner Berkson stated since the Commission loses about 80 percent of revenue to tolling cheaters in the 3+ express lane if the Commission collected that these projects would become more feasible. He requested in the future as he mentioned at a prior meeting to have a legal course of action to take against the cheaters in the 3+ express lane. He expressed these options appear to be replacing existing HOV lanes with paid express lanes, which will help people already using the toll lane but will not help the people that were currently using that lane. Commissioner Berkson noted this will potentially add more traffic to the general purpose lanes and suggested if the Commission moves forward with these to address the issues and concerns. Michael Blomquist replied this is not only a problem with the existing carpooling statewide but many of the express lane facilities have high violation rates. He explained the Commission pays the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to police violations in the express lanes and that service certainly can increase. He discussed the pilot programs that were done and how the Commission on the 1-15 Express Lanes decided to move forward through the industry into a pilot program, which is a camera based system and they are still working through the results. Mr. Blomquist stated there is not an immediate technology solution available and discussed the issue about added capacity versus conversion and the overall benefit to the corridor of traffic operations of fully functioning express lanes. In response to Commissioner Berkson's inquiry with this new technology if it is related to the rest of the nation, Michael Blomquist replied at some point but it is coming. Currently the transponders do not operate nationally. Statewide there will be the 6c transponders throughout the state on every toll facility and some of the other states will do the same in the western region. In response to Commissioner Bailey's clarification, the HOV express lane 3+ would be free and is it something to evaluate and miles would need adjusting, Michael Blomquist replied absolutely. For the purpose of this pilot study they took the same policies currently on 1-15 and all the policies would be subject to Commission approval on whether to charge carpoolers and how much. In response to Commissioner Bailey's inquiry the express lanes 3+ are on certain days of the week, Michael Blomquist replied correct it is Monday through Friday, 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. eastbound 91 Express Lanes it is 50 percent charged for carpoolers. Commissioner Bailey stated the Commission is not adding capacity just changing the lane over. Anne Mayer explained currently most HOV lanes are 2+ and that might not be the case for much longer as the Federal Highway Administration is mandating Caltrans to do something about all these degraded HOV lanes. She stated what the Commission does with that situation is raise the occupancy so it might not be in the distant future the Commission's HOV lanes will automatically go up to 3+ with or without express lanes. She stated as Michael Blomquist mentioned any Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 19 decisions about that would be made based on much greater level of information detailed analysis and the Commission would be involved in that conversation. In response to Commissioner Hernandez's request to elaborate on the criteria for which this was chosen, Greg Hulsizer put up the Overall Feasibility slide and explained the first cut was made strictly on financial feasibility, can this project pay for itself, and can it go and be financed. He stated discussions early on suggested that is great but there are other criteria that should be considered and the RCTC team had that discussion as to what that might be, which the top-level themes are: Transportation Mobility, Financial Feasibility, Connectivity, Project Impacts, and Project Support and Schedule. He discussed below those top-level themes how they got to what connectivity means that was done for each category, which was considered individually, also how the percentages were determined for the overall feasibility. In response to Commissioner Hernandez's question if the assumption for respective jobs and education is the express lanes can get people there faster, Greg Hulsizer replied the assumption is overall the express lanes will increase travel speeds and liability to the extent of being able to locate to ingress and egress near those facilities. M/S/C (Bailey/Vargas) to: 1) Receive study summary results and staff recommendations; and 2) Provide direction on staff recommendations. WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS At this time, Anne Mayer explained the workshop is complete and condensed in to one day so there are no conflicts out of respect and to honor Commissioner Greg Pettis' Celebration of Life held on February 1. She expressed gratitude for the Commissioners thoughts, input, correction, guidance and expressed the Commission is headed down the right path. She confirmed the February 13 Commission meeting is cancelled. At 5:27 p.m., Chair Washington called for a recess until 6:00 p.m. GET ON BOARD AND MEET METROLINK'S NEW CEO Stephanie Wiggins, introduced herself as Metrolink's new CEO and presented an overview of the following areas: • Metrolink in Riverside County: 1) Rider demographics; 2) Metrolink's importance; 3) Rider prospects; 4) Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion (SCORE) Program; 5) Riverside -Downtown station improvements; 6) SCORE improves Metrolink system for the future; 7) Metrolink leads the nation with positive train control; 8) Percentage of miles traveled by county; 9) Key Riverside County initiatives; 10) Future opportunities; and 11) Metrolink powered by clean technology Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2019 Page 20 There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the workshop adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, April 10, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Chuck Washington at 9:31 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Victoria Baca Rusty Bailey Mike Beauchamp Ben J. Benoit Brian Berkson Russell Betts Randall Bonner Joseph DeConinck* Waymond Fermon* Kathleen Fitzpatrick* Raymond Gregory Berwin Hanna Jan Harnik Jeff Hewitt Kevin Jeffries Linda Krupa Clint Lorimore* Bob Magee Lisa Middleton Michael Naggar Dana Reed Wes Speake Karen Spiegel Larry Smith Russ Utz Michael M. Vargas Scott Vinton Chuck Washington Ted Weill* Art Welch Bill Zimmerman Commissioners Absent Steven Hernandez V. Manuel Perez Lloyd White *Arrived after meeting was called to order 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Kevin Jeffries led the Commission in a flag salute. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time, Chair Washington and John Standiford presented Right of Way Manager Mark Lancaster with a 5-year service award, Senior Management Analyst Martha Masters with a 10-year service award, Chief Financial Officer Theresia Trevino with a 15-year Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 2 service award, and Senior Administrative Assistant Shirley Gooding with a 20-year service award. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 13, 2019 M/S/C (Berkson/Baca) to approve the March 13, 2019 minutes as submitted. At this time, Commissioners Joey DeConinck, Waymond Ferman, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Clint Lorimore, and Ted Weill joined the meeting. 6. PUBLIC HEARING — 15 EXPRESS LANES CUSTOMER TRANSPONDER ACCOUNT FEE POLICIES AND TOLL POLICIES Jennifer Crosson presented the 15 Express Lanes Customer Transponder Account Fee Policies and Toll Policies, highlighting the following: • Process: o Presented to the Toll Policy and Operations Committee — February 28, 2019 o 10-day Public Notice required o Public Hearing at today's Commission meeting • RCTC Resolution No. 19-003 Amended and Restated 15 Express Lanes Toll Policy Goals and Toll Policies: o Adopted in June 2016 o Includes 24 toll policies needed to develop the project o One of the 24 policies to be considered for amendment — Clean Air Vehicle Discount • Clean Air Vehicle Diagram — California Toll Operators Solution Clean Air Vehicle (CAV) • RCTC Resolution No. 19-004 — 15 Express Lanes Transponder and Customer Account Fees: o Fee Type and Amount: Sticker Transponder Fee - $5; Switchable Transponder Fee - $15; Mailed Paper Statement Fee - $2; Monthly Account Fee $2; Non -Sufficient Funds Check Fee - $25; Account Suspension Fee - $25; and Pay -by -Plate Fee - $2 In response to Commissioner Scott Vinton's inquiry for the pay -by -plate $2 fee, Jennifer Crosson replied each time the customer drives through without their transponder it would only be implemented after a number of transactions occurred and sufficient notice is given to the customer. The goal is to work with the customer to ensure they have a functioning transponder, how to properly mount that transponder, and after that time there is criteria built into the system to put it onto a list for an individual to review it to confirm they should be eligible for the fee. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 3 In response to Commissioner Vinton's clarification, if there are multiple cars each car needs a transponder, Jennifer Crosson replied correct. In response to Commissioner Ben Benoit's inquiry when the RiversideExpress.com will be accessible to Riverside County customers, Jennifer Crosson replied about April 2020. In response to Commissioner Karen Spiegel's clarification for the difference of the internal and external sticker transponder, Jennifer Crosson replied most customers receives an internal sticker that goes inside the vehicle behind the review mirror. She stated the external sticker transponder is for the Tesla due to the high metal oxide and for motorcycles that goes on the headlamp so the transponder can be read. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's inquiry if there is a limit on the number of stickered transponders per account, Jennifer Crosson replied no one per vehicle is preferred. Commissioner Brian Berkson clarified about the $2 pay -by -plate violation fee each time going through a checkpoint and the problem for the 1-15 Express Lanes is there will be five or six checkpoints, which could be $10 or $12 for one trip. He asked if it is being limited to a $2 maximum per route per direction. Jennifer Crosson stated each toll point is referred to as a transaction and transactions build up to a trip and the $2 would apply to one trip. Commissioner Rusty Bailey clarified not looking closely enough if the projected revenue is coming from the transponder fees and since the Commission needs more people to use this lane suggested giving one transponder for free. He explained in looking at the SR-91 toll revenues the Commission is beyond projected revenue and if the Commission could give one transponder for free to provide some appreciation to the customer it makes the Commission look good. Jennifer Crosson replied she is not sure if she can answer that question if the Commission can do that for free. She explained when working on the 91 revamp of their policies ahead of the 60 transition focus groups were held with customers to test these fees and there was no issue with the $5 transponder fee. There is a cost incurred to purchase these, to mail the package that goes with this and the postage adds up to the $5. She expressed the Commission would not want to give them all free as the customer would ask for more than they need and staff would not want these floating around. Jennifer Crosson noted the idea of the first transponder free really did not occur to staff. Commissioner Bailey stated from a public relations position for getting new customers to sign up a lower barrier entry there even though $5 is not that big of deal. In going through the process of looking at this in the future for the Commission to connect that service and it could be a nice public relations piece. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 4 Commissioner Larry Smith referred to Commissioner Bailey's suggestion about free transponders and stated there may be another way to achieve this, which would be to credit the customer's account with a $15 credit that initiates the process for them to try the toll lanes. Jennifer Crosson stated the Commission will offer new account holders free tolls for two weeks so they do get a good entry level. She explained the account policies are much more generous than the 91 Express Lanes, it has not been a barrier to opening for 91 Express Lanes, and accounts continue to grow at 500 a week today, which is a big increase then what there was before. She stated there will be some promotional activities that will give them something like a credit. At this time, Chair Washington opened the public hearing and requested if there are any public comments. There were no comments received from the public. In response to Commissioner Keren Spiegel's inquiry if the old transponders will need to be turned in, Jennifer Crosson replied that is for the 91 Express Lanes and this is for the I- 15 Express Lanes. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's clarification how far between the two will the 91 Express Lanes transponders be converted into the stickers, Jennifer Crosson replied that should happen this summer. Commissioner Spiegel asked is that coordinated with the 91 Express Lanes with Orange County all at one time and adding the same transponder sticker and the little switchable with the 1-15 Express Lanes. Jennifer Crosson stated correct, the Commission shares an account base there and the price being proposed today is the same as the 91. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's inquiry about people being concerned that there will be the lack of understanding for the differences between the two, Jennifer Crosson replied Orange County and Riverside County 91 Express Lanes are the same. Commissioner Wes Speake noted in following the 91 Project there will not be a problem marketing this to the public. He expressed the commuters that are currently sitting on I- 15 going north or south depending on the day are going to run at this and he does not see any issues. He stated with seeing some of the projections put forward there should not be any issues attracting enough users and have a similar response the Commission had with the 91 Project. Commissioner Dana Reed moved adoption of both Resolutions Nos. 19-003 and 19-004. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 5 Commissioner Russell Betts explained when the I-10 Express Lanes were put in place there was an amnesty period that if somebody drove down the lanes and got a traffic ticket they had the option of trading the ticket for a transponder and signing up for the program. He asked if that is envisioned for this system. Jennifer Crosson replied staff has not presented that ordinance or those policies yet, that is to come. Commissioner Betts stated it comes a great easy way to recruit new customers and to get a transponder. Jennifer Crosson stated she understands there is legislation that is prohibiting all toll agencies from marketing to violators at the moment. At this time, Chair Washington closed the public hearing. M/S/C (Baca/Smith) to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 19-003, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting the Amended and Restated Interstate 15 Express Lanes Toll Policy Goals and Toll Policies"; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 19-004, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the 15 Express Lanes Transponder and Customer Account Fee Policies". 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There is a revision to Agenda Item 8C, "Riverside Transit Agency Fiscal Year 2018/19 Short Range Transit Plan." 8. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Baca/Smith) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. 8A. AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT SERVICES 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call right of way support services for a three-year term in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $3 million: a) Agreement No. 19-31-045-00 to Epic Land Solutions; b) Agreement No. 19-31-046-00 to Overland, Pacific, & Cutler; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, on behalf of the Commission; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 6 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the consultants under the terms of the agreements. 88. AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES 1) Award Agreement 19-31-013-00 to Psomas to provide on -call right of way engineering and surveying services for a three-year term, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $480,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the consultant under the terms of the agreement. 8C. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT 1) Approve an increase to Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) Fiscal Year 2018/19 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) operating assistance allocation in the amount of $1.6 million; 2) Approve reductions to RTA's FY 2018/19 2009 Measure A Western County Public Transit -Intercity Bus operating assistance allocation in the amount of $1,465,000 and 2009 Measure A Western County Public Transit - Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) operating assistance allocation in the amount of $135,000; 3) Approve adjustments to the FY 2018/19 budget to increase LTF transit operating expenditures by $1.6 million and to decrease1 2009 Measure A Western County Public Transit -Intercity Bus and Public Transit-CTSA transit operating expenditures by $1,465,000 and $135,000, respectively; and 4) Approve an amendment to RTA's FY 2018/19 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the swap of $1.6 million in 2009 Measure A Western County Public Transit funds with $1.6 million of available LTF. 9. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Jillian Guizado, Legislative Affairs Manager, presented an update on state and federal legislative activities. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's inquiry about the conversation that led up to AB 626, Jillian Guizado discussed how in the section of law that this bill is seeking to amend applies to public employees and the intent is to identify public employees who may have a financial interest in all different types of matters. She discussed the lawsuit Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 7 that led to the Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) getting involved and have begun to provide opinions to local agencies on their procurements. Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, stated the conflict of interest laws establish what is called a remote interest. He explained the courts and the FPPC were finding that an architect or designer, who had worked on an earlier phase of a project and was deemed as a public official under Section 1090, had a remote interest in the project. By allowing them to work on subsequent phases of the project, they had an advantage by designing the project and then using that information to work on subsequent phases of the project. Mr. DeBaun noted the FPPC has not really settled on a position and there have been some recent FPPC decisions that seem to back away from how the FPPC is actually interpreting this but this is very much influx. He stated the American Council of Engineers (ACEC) is trying to firm up the exemption and take it away from the FPPC. In response to Commissioner Vinton's inquiry that they are prohibited to go to the next step in the engineering or the design phase, Jillian Guizado replied she understands that currently they are not prohibited. However when it gets analyzed it goes to the FPPC or it gets challenged then they are citing this court case saying they are in fact prohibited from participating in future phases. Steve DeBaun concurred that is generally accurate and explained the FPPC is somewhat unsettled on this and what ACEC is trying to do is create a bright line rather than leaving it up to the FPPC and potentially local public agencies to make that decision. He explained what is being seen is that local agencies are adopting their own local rules in some case citing the Section 1090 and sometimes citing it incorrectly due to an incorrect analysis. Jillian Guizado stated with that said what the Commission follows particularly as it relates to the Commission's design -build contracts where there is work that needs to be done sort of early on that it is valuable to have that individual be able to participate in future phases. She discussed how the Commission has each sub consultant submit a conflict of interest form if someone who is proposing has participated in a prior phase and how it is reviewed by an entire team to determine if they should be allowed to participate in that next phase or not. In response to Commissioner Vinton's inquiry if AB 626 passes how does that negate exactly what the Commission is currently doing, Jillian Guizado replied the Commission's concern if AB 626 passes having language explicitly in that code section that states engineers, surveyors, and the other individuals listed do not have an interest. She discussed how that individual could point to this section of law noting there is no interest even if the Commission determines there is an interest, therefore creating a conflict between the law and the Commission Procurement Policy. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 8 In response to Commissioner Vinton's clarification that the Commission could decide not to pursue that individual or that individual firm to move forward whether or not it does not have to be because of a conflict of interest, Jillian Guizado the Commission does not determine who moves forward it is all in who applies. In response to Commissioner Vinton's inquiry if an applicant who was on the preliminary design wants to go forward the Commission could decide that firm cannot move forward as a choice, Steve DeBaun replied the Commission does not have a choice as to who would apply. He stated the Commission cannot set out a request for proposal (RFP) to a group of people and then for an arbitrary decision. Commissioner Vinton clarified he was referring to the ultimate decision once the Commission receives proposals. Steve DeBaun replied there is a process for scoring the proposals and ranking the proposals. If the proposer the Commission was concerned about ranked highest, the Commission could simply not offer the job to that particular proposer for just an arbitrary reason. Jillian Guizado stated that is the concern if that language then gets into state law the Commission is concerned to state there is too big of a conflict here and does not feel comfortable with that individual being on the next phase. She expressed the concern is that individual is going to pull up the law and the law explicitly states they do not have a conflict. Commissioner Vinton expressed concern as it was mentioned this is very ambiguous now and the Commission would want to continue with this ambiguity. In response to Commissioner Jan Harnik's inquiry about the two bills in the state currently moving very rapidly, Jillian Guizado replied the Active Transportation Program, which are AB 1402 and SB 152. Commissioner Harnik clarified what the Commission is trying to support is just the local understanding is taken away now from the locals by this AB 626. Jillian Guizado concurred and stated another way that is preferred is to use the Commission's discretion and staff does their best to not conflict people out as an entire evaluation is conducted to determine is this appropriate and does it make sense. Commissioner Jeffries stated that in this particular one in the Legislature he is having trouble grappling with a real life situation that justifies any position here. He explained potential conflict of interest is being discussed however, he is not aware of actual conflicts of interests that have proven themselves a conflict because a surveyor worked on Phase 1 and wants to work on Phase 2, which is not inherently a conflict as much as it is a business request. Commissioner Jeffries expressed respecting the Commission has a need for self-control and utilizing discretion but when the Commission pre -disqualifies Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 9 someone the Commission does not get to exercise discretion here, it is already determined for the Commission. He then requested some examples of scenarios. Jillian Guizado requested the Commission's Project Delivery Director or the Toll Policy Director to approach the dais to provide some examples. Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director, stated the clearest example is if a designer is working on the design phase of the project and then later the same firm becomes a construction manager in charge of the project. If that firm faces a claim situation with a contractor then that construction management firm would be in a position to advise the Commission whether the cause of the issue is due to their own design, so there may be a financial conflict of interest. Marlin Feenstra clarified it is really about local control and being able to make decisions and currently the Commission makes decisions on a case by case basis on the Commission's judgement based on the situation and to allow as much competition as much as possible. He expressed the bill as proposed would take away the Commission's ability to make any of those decisions. Commissioner Jeffries expressed appreciation for the example as that seems to be a potential conflict and stated the self-control actually leads to trying to have the most competition the most applicants as Mr. Feenstra mentioned since the Commission pre - disqualifies firms from applying, which is actually thinning the field out. He noted respecting this and he will probably support staff's recommendation. Jillian Guizado clarified to Commissioner Jeffries her understanding of how procurements are run is the Commission does not automatically pre -disqualify them. Staff allows them to submit their conflict of interest and it is evaluated on a case -by -case basis. In response to Commissioner Jeffries' clarification who does the evaluation and is it determined before it gets to the Commission, Jillian Guizado replied it is staff's job to do the evaluation at the staff level and bring the recommendations to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Jeffries' inquiry the firms will be listed but will be shown as disqualified or recommended, Marlin Feenstra replied staff works with the procurement department as a group they make those determinations. If a firm is proposing on a certain contract and if they believe they may have a conflict of interest, they will submit a request for a determination in case that firm is not going to be seriously considered. He stated when he mentioned staff tries to allow for the most competition possible what he meant was that staff tries to allow as many firms to compete as possible. Matt Wallace, Procurement Manager, explained when the request for conflict of interests comes in there is a team of Commission staff, project and program management consultants and legal staff weigh in on all these determinations. Ultimately, that decision Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 10 recommendation is provided to Anne Mayer and she makes the formal determination, which is provided back to the sub consultant or consultant requesting determination. In response to Commissioner Lisa Middleton's clarification about adopting an oppose position and if staff worked with the Author of AB 626 to make amendments that would allow the Commission to either support or be neutral, Jillian Guizado replied that is typically the Commission's practice, however in this case the Commission did not. John Standiford replied part of that had to do with the timing, as the Commission would definitely work with the Author's office to communicate the Commission's concerns as this moves forward. Commissioner Ben Benoit stated if that is the case and the Commission is looking to work with the Author, does the Commission consider there is language it can support and if so why would the Commission be taking an oppose unless amended position and provide some recommended support language. Steve DeBaun replied the Commission has draft language that could be presented ensuring local control would be maintained, however this language has not been presented since Commission staff has not reviewed it yet. Commissioner Benoit suggested the recommendation is opposition unless amended and that Commission staff find some language that works with the Commission's current procurement policy. Commissioner Vinton expressed appreciation for Mr. Feenstra's example from design to construction management there is a definite conflict of interest there. He suggested it would be easy when going through the process to say no there is a conflict. He stated he does not see a conflict between a preliminary design and detailed design work for plans, specifications, and estimate in that of itself. Commissioner Speake stated being on the other side as a consultant, they do enter into these conflicts sometimes. He explained one of their clients is Caltrans therefore whenever working on their projects he is not on the design side he usually does the biological studies and permitting. Commissioner Speake discussed when being on a team as a sub consultant there are primes that will not use him, as they do not want to submit a conflict, which can be seen as a negative. He supports Commissioner Benoit's proposed recommendation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 11 M/S/C Benoit/Speake) to: 1) Adopt the following bill position: a) AB 626 (Quirk -Silva) Oppose unless amended and work with the Authur to find language that works with the Commission's current procurement; and 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. Abstain: Vinton 10. MODIFICATIONS TO 2019 CALL BOX PROGRAM UPGRADE/REDUCTION PLAN Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager, presented the call box program optimization update, highlighting the following areas: • Optimization Plan Update: • March Commission Approval — Call box upgrade and reduction plan reduce from 234 to 151 call boxes; Program sunset end of FY 2023/24; CASE Systems Amendment through June 30, 2020; and SBCTA and OCTA Agreement for shared call answering services for call box operations and future 511 motorist assistance services; • Approved 2019 Call Box Plan: o 3G Network Obsolete after December 31, 2019/reduction criteria 833 removals o 234 call box (current)/reduce to 151 call boxes o 4G Upgrade Cost $211,000 one-time/4G Upgrade Cost $136,000 one time o Project maintenance costs: $560,000 over 5 years/project maintenance costs: $326,000 over 5 years • Approved 2019 Call Box Plan Map • Commissioner requests/suggestions: o Traffic volumes: was not a reliable indicator of call box usage to apply system wide o Adjacency: there are 31 call boxes within one mile of another call box or service that were not recommended for removal due to a combination of considerations including usage and grade o 511 Signage Outreach: Mobile 511 call box program will launch in 2020 • Highways of Concern: o 1-10 —12 Call boxes of the 94 total on the 1-10 are slated for removal in the approved Call Box Plan o SR-78 — 3 Call boxes of the 3 total on SR-78 are slated for removal in the approved Call Box Plan due to low usage o SR-86 — 8 Call boxes of 8 total are slated for removal due to low usage and/or proximity to amenities/services Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 12 o SR-111-1 Call box of the 3 total is slated for removal due to being a B site type configuration o US-95 — A total of 2 call boxes are slated for removal due to low usage and both are C site type configurations • Modified 2019 Call Box Plan Map — Recommendation to keep five call boxes to reduce from 234 to 156 call boxes John Standiford expressed appreciation to the Commissioners that provided feedback after this was presented at its March Commission meeting. Staff is essentially trying to strike a balance between public safety and the cost concerns and this plan gets to that goal. He stated a 2024 sunset has been identified and it could be revisited sooner, in the mean time staff wanted to address any of the Commissioners concerns, which each one of those areas were addressed. Commissioner Speake expressed appreciation for taking the 511 suggestion very seriously and since the Commission is moving forward with that, he requested as the Commission transitions over to that program to have 511 signage out there for motorists so when they see a motorist they can call. He expressed it is a great program and is looking forward to seeing that all over the County. M/S/C (Berkson/Vargas) to approve modifications to the 2019 Call Box Upgrade and Reduction Plan (CB Plan) approved at the March Commission meeting. No: Zimmerman 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 12A. Commissioner Smith announced the Commission had approved the SR-60 Truck Lanes Project with great impact coming. He reminded staff to coordinate some informational meetings to those cities in the Pass Area and surrounding that may be impacted by this upcoming project. He expressed appreciation the Commission staff met with his staff and another council member and explained step-by-step of what to expect related to the impacts. John Standiford stated there will be a SR-60 Truck Lanes Project presentation at its May Commission meeting. 12B. Commissioner Zimmerman requested when the Commission meeting adjourns to do so in memory of CHP Sergeant Steve Licon. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 13 12C. Commissioner Rusty Bailey expressed appreciation Aaron Hake, Government Relations Director, presented #ReBootMyCommute at the city of Riverside City Council meeting as it was very well received. He encouraged other Commissioners to have a similar presentation at their city council chambers. Commissioner Bailey announced at the Annual Workshop he mentioned the Santa Ana River Trail and was reminded that CV Link is a great project for Eastern County and the Santa Ana River Trail is another great project that is unfinished in Western Riverside County. There is some funding from the state through the Santa Ana River Conservancy to finish that off and requested staff to report back on the progress and what is left unfinished related to the Santa Ana River Trail. 12D. Commissioner Michael Vargas announced this is the last weekend for Thomas the Train at the Orange Empire Railway Museum in the city of Perris. 12E. Commissioner Harnik stated that regarding #ReBootMyCommute the city of Palm Desert added all the contact information into their citywide newsletter as that information the Commission collects from there is invaluable. She recommended all the cities provide that information to their community members as it is a great asset the Commission. Commissioner Harnik announced May 1-3 is the Southern California Association of Governments' General Assembly held in the city of Palm Desert. 12F. Chair Washington encouraged supporting the mountain communities such as Idyllwild, Pine Cove, and the others that have been affected by the closure of State Highways 243 and 74, which are the most convenient routes used by tourists. He asked Mike Beauchamp, Caltrans District to provide an update on the closure. Mike Beauchamp stated that recently they opened the route from Idyllwild to Lake Fulmore and Caltrans is working 24 hours a day trying to get escort service in the next two to three weeks up SR-74. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Item APN(s) Property Owner Buyer(s) 1 117-113-002, 117-113-003, and 117-113-004 Riverside County Transportation Commission Maria Calderon Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2019 Page 14 117-121-003, 117-121-008, Riverside County 2 and 117-121-009 Transportation Commission Maria G. Ramos There were no announcements from the Closed Session Items. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting in honor of CHP Sergeant Steve Licon's memory at 10:55 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 8, 2019, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 PUBLIC HEARING REVISION TO ATTACHMENT 1 (Revisions Highlighted in Yellow) TO AGENDA ITEM 7 EXHIBIT "A" FEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 305-050-051 BEING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, LYING IN THE CITY OF PERRIS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED DULY 18, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 1963-75284, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LAND AS SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP FILED AS RIV.CO 205-228, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD AND NORTH LINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 85° 19'34" WEST 47.78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 85° 19'34" WEST 241.52 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF ROUTE 215 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1. NORTH 52°27'32" WEST 88.82 FEET; 2. NORTH 23°42'21" WEST 228.45 FEET; 3. NORTH 37°23' 17" WEST 597.88 FEET; 4. NORTH 35°20' 14" WEST 525.49 FEET; 5. NORTH 29°26'54" WEST 148.20 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF WALNUT STREET (30.00 FOOT HALF -WIDTH) AS ON SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP FILED AS RIV.CO 205-229, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 88°05'02" EAST 20.11 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 32°01'59" EAST 233.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38° 13'23" EAST 327.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46°06'37" EAST 463.29 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°58'44" EAST 270.26 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 504.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43 °40'40" AN ARC LENGTH OF 384.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 13 ° 18'04" EAST 87.21 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1 THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 179,806 SQUARE FEET OR 4.128 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THIS CONVEYANCE IS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF A FREEWAY AND THE GRANTOR HEREBY RELEASES AND RELINQUISHES TO THE STATE ANY AND ALL ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF ACCESS, APPURTENANT TO GRANTOR'S REMAINING PROPERTY, IN AND TO THE FREEWAY. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS' ACT. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 6 (NAD83) 1991.35 EPOCH. DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY .999924951 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HEREWITH AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. 05/02/2019 R. RIOS, PLS 8823 DATE 2 CD N N O 1 1 1 EXHIBIT 99 B 99 ) N N H , N Nt . 1 L7 I NN N `l I i APN: ao lozo-oar LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N8519'34"W 241.52' L2 N52'27'32" W 88.82' L3 N23'42'21" W 228.45' L4 N3723'17"W 597.88' L5 N35201141'W 525.49' L6 N29'26'541'W 148.20' L7 588'05'021 20.11' LS S32`01'59" E 233.74' L9 S3813'23" E 327.06' L10 S46'06'3TE 463.29' L11 S55'58'44”E 270.26' L12 51318'04"E 87.21' L13 N8519'34"W 47.78' BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE IN TERMS OF THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF OF 1983 (EPOCH 1991.35), ZONE VI. ALL NON —RECORD DISTANCES ARE GRID DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY 0.999924951. LEGEND OESCRIP110N AREA 179,806 9Q. FT / 4.128 AFFECTED PROPERTY -- CENTERUNE �s ADJACENT PROPERTY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ACCESS RESTRICTIONS �- - WALNUT ST. - F N 4304,7 N 9c N oqo \ POR. NW 1 /4, SEC. 18, T.4S., R.3W., S.B.M. APN: 305-050-051 L2 4 'D w. -G. D. \ APN: 305-050-055 1 L12 L13 PLACENTIA AVENUE L1 T.P.0.6. TOW! LL I SurverS Servicesi ng and G 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite C-190 Rancho Cummenga, CA 91730-5858 (909) 303-7960 -A www.towill.com i i EXHIBIT "A" FEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 305-050-051 BEING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, LYING IN THE CITY OF PERRIS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED JULY 18, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 1963-75284, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LAND AS SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP FILED AS RIV.CO 205-228, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD AND NORTH LINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 85° 19'34" WEST 47.78 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 13° 18'04" WEST 87.21 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 504.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°25'37" AN ARC LENGTH OF 91.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88° 18'04" EAST 96.42 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID EAST FRONTAGE ROAD BEING A CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1150.01 FEET, A RADIAL BEARING THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 87°07'27" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°25'47", AN ARC LENGTH OF 68.84 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 00°33' 13" WEST 103.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 11,958 SQUARE FEET OR 0.275 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THE GRANTOR HEREBY RELEASES AND RELINQUISHES TO THE STATE ANY AND ALL ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF ACCESS, APPURTENANT TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, IN AND TO THE FREEWAY, AND ALSO HEREBY RELINQUISHES TO THE GRANTEE ANY AND ALL ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF ACCESS, APPURTENANT TO THE GRANTOR'S REMAINING PROPERTY TO SAID DESCRIBED LAND. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS' ACT. 1 BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 6 (NAD83) 1991.35 EPOCH. DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY .999924951 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HEREWITH AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. 05/02/2019 R. RIOS, PLS 8823 DATE 2 EXHIBIT LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L14 N8519'34"W 47.78' L15 N1318'041'W 87.21' L16 S8818104"E 96.42' L17 S00131131'W 103.95' L18 N87'07'27"E RADIAL CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH C1 10'25'37" 504.00' 91.72' C2 325'47" 1150.01' 68.84' BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE IN TERMS OF THE CAUFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF OF 1983 (EPOCH 1991.35), ZONE VI. ALL NON -RECORD DISTANCES ARE GRID DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY 0.999924951. LEGEND DESCRIPTION AREA 11,958 SQ. FT / 0.275 ACRES AFFECTED PROPERTY - CENTERLINE - - ADJACENT PROPERTY \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ACCESS RESTRICTIONS - WALNUT ST. FUTURE FREEWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLACENTIA AVENUE TOW1LLI8urve�np� Mapping and 6 S Services 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite C-190 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5858 (909) 303-7960 - www.towill.com FOR AGENDA ITEM 7 March 11, 2019 Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3' Floor Riverside, California 92501 Re: 3/7/2019 letter that I received from Best Best & Krieger LLP. S2e-owcd -by L' )vtoko�y elY\ lard it 1-2.0�q Question .A.: about the 3/7/20191etter. EXHIBIT A, PAGE 1 OF 3. It shows ...... portion of the property to be acquired. Which portion ? EXHIBIT A, PAGE 2 OF 3. It is my parcel #305-060-010 Exhibit "A". EXHIBIT A, PAGE 3 OF 3. It is my parcel #305-060-010 map. Please send to me LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAT" with EXHIBIT "A" for "night of way"of Placentia Ave and Indian Ave. Question B: about the 3/7/2019 letter. .authorizing the commencement of eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of real property interests in property Which property ? Which portion ? What purpose ? The 3/7/2019 letter is not clear, not enough explained and not enclosed proposed project design. 1) If RCTC use "eminent domain" on my lot, what is purpose ? Is it portion or whole lot ? 2) Please let me know all listing which property and which portion ROTC want to buy. 3) Did RCTC ask ROTC want to buy my south side property ? If that owner say "does not want to sell", does RCTC use "eminent domain" to acquire both property ? 4) Please send to me RCTC proposed project design for Intersection of Interstate 215 and P lacentia Ave. 5) My son Grant Kim is one of owner and not living at my address. So I returned the 3/7/2019 Best Best & Krieger mail. He is NAVY Reservoir and he is out of town for on job duty now. If you need mail to him, you have to find out where he is on job duty. Hearing on 5/8/2019 is not public hearing. It seems like RCTC try to hide not right reason to public. It seems like RCTC want to extort my whole lot. I do not want to be extorted my whole lot by Government power. I do not want to sell my whole lot because I already have my lot developing plan design. Note: I do not have e-mail address. I want to receive all answer by mail. Chang & Young Kim (My parcel # 305-060-010) (909)233-5083 562 South Ashford Ave, Bloomington, CA 92316 1a I=Ott'��t�t�'��t�•1+1l��J�il�,������+if<<t�i�i�.r�tr��fi����t���� veri .meevypd , C r3Z0Z —9 t CCE 91 £Z5 VD-uOttpAto lil anu A (Ti` k/ 'S Z95 tuts `s wax° r}� R.d �► sv 5113NVO .LV :im[393 ?S "sat*" JILSRIff IUSI6 V3'apts.DntK mou anuaAv 06€E March 11, 2019 Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3' Floor Riverside, California 92501 1)-c aeitpea (f)(01- kkblo\-cii thr) Oitymooh\11e2-0101 Re: 3/7/2019 letter that I received from Best Best & Krieger LLP. Question A: about the 3/7/2019 letter. EXHIBIT A, PAGE 1 OF 3. It shows ...... portion of the property to be acquired. Which portion ? EXHIBIT A, PAGE 2 OF 3. It is my parcel #305-060-010 Exhibit "A". EXHIBIT A, PAGE 3 OF 3. It is my parcel #305-060-010 map. Please send to me LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAT" with EXHIBIT "A" for "Right of way"of Placentia Ave and Indian Ave. Question B: about the 3/7/2019 letter. authorizing the commencement of eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of real property interests in property Which property ? Which portion ? What purpose ? The 3/7/2019 letter is not clear, not enough explained and not enclosed proposed project design. 1) If RCTC use "eminent domain" on nay lot, what is purpose ? Is it portion or whole lot ? 2) Please let me know all listing which property and which portion RCTC want to buy. 3) Did RCTC ask RCTC want to buy my south side property ? If that owner say "does not want to sell", does RCTC use "eminent domain" to acquire both property ? 4) Please send to me RCTC proposed project design for Intersection of Interstate 215 and P lacentia Ave. 5) My son Grant Kim is one of owner and not living at my address. So I returned the 3/7/2019 Best Best & Krieger mail. He is NAVY Reservoir and he is out of town for on job duty now. If you need mail to him, you have to find out where he is on job duty. Hearing on 518/2019 is not public hearing. It seems like RCTC by to hide not right reason to public. It seems like RCTC want to extort my whole lot. I do not want to be extorted my whole lot by Government power. I do not want to sell my whole lot because I already have my lot developing plan design. Note: I do not have e-mail address. I want to receive all answer by mail. Chang &Young Kim (My parcel # 305-060-010) (909)233-5083 562 South Ashford Ave, Bloomington, CA 92316 t rt. tot 11,1 still tit I tivitaffithid fit rift.. tit f .oslere veriL ,‘. •• t;?, ‘4414 .vwv7,0 .000$' Z9Z0Z —9 I 9 91 EZ6 V3 'u !moolU anus y (II S V -S Z95 'S luulD 1 Wd 61:, ZO ..,/sodeau . If; I-11AT 011 'res tillf;:lf..-11.1 NIS ie-Poiowvi (eV/21)114°4\1 _40 960 liorML MVI SA31\1110.1.1.V al3931t1)1 is32 I i76 VJ `21Irs-lak!)1 vx44 kri5 Al!smi!lin oak: .4 41_ April 8, 2019 Mark Lancaster ROTC 4080 Lemon St. 3rd Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 7 87-7141 P e-mail : mlancaster@rctc.org Dear Mark Lancaster, I received your April 3, 2019 letter. I will not attend "District Condemnation Evaluation Meeting". Because My family do not want to sell whole lot. My opinion : I want ROTC do under condition instead of compensation to me for "Right of Way" to make road Placentia Ave and Indian Ave. 1) See attached my 4/8/2019 drawing (It is base on I received your 1 /23/2019 e-mail). MY drawing shows if ROTC give to me 24' wide my west side land, then I will give to RCTC 30.39' wide (hatch area) my east side for "Detention Basin". 2) RCTC do street improvement and all utility (include telephone line and cable line) put inside street water gutter. The drawing shows five building site. 3) RCTC do Grading and pad with Perris City permit. The drawing shows parking lot driveway entrance and ground water flow direction. 4) My west side parking lot driveway open each other with West side property to connect Frontage Rd. Chang Kim family: Property APN # 3 0 5-060-010 (909)233-5083 562 South Ashford Ave. Bloomington, CA 92316 -pd aeol_uoJ q_Daut,AoD o4. apes 1.sam up•ea uado komaAyp 4.oi 13u!>1.4ud apfs 4.sap\ 'uo!4.Das,i!to mou ,4a4:om puno-i5 put) apkico,44.ua 4.o) SuN,cod smoLis 4,1 "Wow -a 6102/C2/1 sAaq soDuoi '41 1.10,4j. paA!apa.,1 I uo pas'oci 6T02/8/0. 6uimv,ip a4:0Pcin LE'9g9 = V2 Lc.2c9 Di? 88128 Is,q-'22' IL6 II 4111111.1111101111 92 < < NI/ < — < < 92 s2 ti ammilro 92 < < t <---- < onomArei Er4 ' 92 t7 2-3 OV t.v 92 6EIP91 S-21 Y611 S8`06 v 66 16 16 12 6E 2V9 6E'2E9 SIB 6E'9g9 b2 + 68*269 C80g-CE2(606> 91E26 V3 uol-6ulwoolE1 'aAv p%)04tAsV Lil-tioS 29g wi>1 buoqj :aurow OT0-090-g0E # laDJ°cd d3ci L,roHoui and 'onwtapsold Jaut,top 4_samq4_nos koAAaa.) FLYING V REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside CA 92501 Mark Lancaster Right of Way Manager RCTC 4080 lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside CA 92501 RE: Wednesday May 8 2019 meeting at 9:30 am at Riverside County Administration Building APN#305-050-051 and 305-050-055 Dear Ms. Mobley and Mr. Lancaster, Mr. Robert W Barker, trustee of the Barker Family Trust is being represented b myself in the pending Y Y p g eminent domain issue. I will not be able to be present at the May 8th meeting due tom upcoming Y p g travel schedule. Mr. Barker would like to be heard by the Riverside County Transportation Commission on but this date does not work for me. Can I propose one of the two solutions: A) Go on the docket at a later date in May or earl June. I Y y am available the rest of the month of May. OR B) Have the following written statement read out lou d to the Commission. These questions address Mr. Barker's concerns with the taking. Mr. Barker's statement tement would be the following: Mr. Barker has already gone thru the Eminent Domain process on this property. He understand s that it is the right of the government and/or its agent(s) to expropriate private property for ' p p p y public use with payment of compensation but he believes that there has to be a benefit to the general public based on necessity. Mr Barker would like to know where the necessitywas in taking r from him the first time and then simply n g property p y of doing anything with it. To a layman it appears that there was actually no necessity and no benefit to the general public at all. Could someone explain why it was necessary to make a taking of his property that p y p p y clearly led to no public benefit? Now, 28 years later in 2019, Mr. Barker is being told that the land that was taken was not the right lan d. nd. The land taken from him was taken based on an outdated or "wrong" layout for what is now nece ssary. ry. Cal Trans, the agency that made this taking, clearly did not forecast what would be necessary and have deeded they wanted a different I correctly layout and in turn are completely tearing up the configurations of the current properties. Mr Barker would like a formal response to the questions of necessity and layout. p se questi Please let me know how you would like to proceed but I am not clear what the next ste p should be seeing that there is no way I can be in Riverside on May 8tn Thanks. _Sincerely, -,7gYkk,a, ert LValandra u ©LEO \\991.77i) NI MAR 1 ; nu! Lij RIVERSIDE COON- T'RANSPORTATION COM,,..: )N 4414 Campbell Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 390.8471 (310) 390.8232 Fax (310) 428.7172 Cell RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adopt Two Resolutions of Necessity for the Acquisition of Fee and Temporary Construction Easement Interests in All or Portions of Certain Real Property, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel Nos. 305-050-051 and 305-050-055 (CPNs 1009 and 1010), and Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-010 (CPN 1012), Located in Perris, Riverside County, California, for the Construction of an Interchange at the Intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, in Riverside County, California Staff Recommendation: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of resolutions of necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected properties and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the resolutions of necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. 3) Adopt Resolutions of Necessity Nos. 19-005 and 19-006, "Resolutions of Necessity for the Acquisition of Fee and Temporary Construction Easement Interests in All or Portions of Certain Real Property, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel Nos. 305-050-051 and 305-050-055 (CPNs 1009 and 1010), and Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-010 (CPN 1012), located in Perris, Riverside County, California," for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, in Riverside County, California. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is being asked to consider the adoption of two resolutions of necessity declaring its intent to acquire fee and temporary construction easement interests in all or in portions of certain real property, by eminent domain, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel Nos. Agenda Item 7 1 305-050-051 and 305-050-055 (CPNs 1009 and 1010), and Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-010 (CPN 1012), for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of 1-215 and Placentia Avenue, as part of Mid County Parkway Project (the Project). The immediate need for the property acquisitions is to proceed with the construction of the I-215/Placentia Avenue interchange. The acquisitions are required for and will benefit the community by providing additional lanes on Placentia Avenue between Indian Avenue and Harvill Avenue, as well as a new freeway access point with entrance and exit ramps to 1-215 from Placentia Avenue. Preliminary title reports and/or litigation guarantees were obtained from Commonwealth Title Insurance Company to confirm and identify the record owners of the parcels affected by the Project. The Commission then served the affected property owners with notices of the Commission's decision to appraise the property. The Commission had the properties appraised and made offers to the record owners. Negotiations have been unsuccessful for the purchase of the interests necessary for the Project. The adoption of resolutions of necessity for the interests will not prevent negotiations from continuing. Since an agreement has not been reached with the owners of record, it is necessary to acquire the fee and temporary construction easement interests described in the attachments by eminent domain. The initiation of the eminent domain process is accomplished by the Commission's adoption of resolutions of necessity for the affected property. Description Of Property To Be Acquired: 1. Assessor Parcel Nos. 305-050-051 and 305-050-055 (CPNs 1009 and 1010), the Larger Parcels are owned by Robert Barker and Dorothy Jo Barker, Trustees of the Barker Family Trust. The property is located in Perris, Riverside County, California and has no situs address. The property is a vacant lot located along the east and west sides of East Frontage Road, between Placentia Avenue and Walnut Avenue, in the city of Perris. The design of the Project requires that the Commission acquire both fee and temporary construction interests in both parcels for the construction of the northbound entrance ramp and the realignment of the East Frontage Road. The legal definitions, legal descriptions and plat maps of the portions to be acquired are attached and marked as Exhibit A. 2. Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-010 (CPN 1012) is owned by Chang Z. Kim, Young H. Kim and Grant S. Kim. The property is located in Perris, Riverside County, California and has no situs address. The property is vacant. The design of the Project requires that the Commission acquire the entire parcel to construct the south half of Placentia Avenue as well as the construction of a detention basin for storm water runoff. The legal description and map of the property to be acquired is attached. Agenda Item 7 2 Project Description: 1-215 In and Near Perris from south of Perris Boulevard Undercrossing to north of Oleander Avenue Overcrossing. Propose is to improve the existing Interstate 215 (1-215) by adding an interchange at Placentia Avenue in the City of Perris. The proposed improvements include construction of new northbound and southbound on and off ramps on the east and west side of 1-215 at Placentia Avenue, relocation of the East Frontage Road, removal of the West Frontage Road connection to Placentia Avenue, widen Placentia Avenue bridge and overcrossing from 2 to 6 lanes between Harvill Avenue on the west and Indian Avenue on the east, install High Occupancy Vehicle by pass lane and ramp metering on the on -ramps, construct drainage improvements, install new traffic signals on Placentia Avenue at Harvill Avenue, Indian Avenue, East Frontage Road, and at the ramp intersections, and Install advance freeway overhead signs. Hearings And Required Findings: The action requested of the Commission at the conclusion of this hearing is the adoption of resolutions of necessity, authorizing the acquisition of real property interests by eminent domain. The property owners are: Robert Barker and Dorothy Jo Barker, Trustees of the Barker Family Trust: part acquisition of fee and temporary construction easement interests; Chang Z. Kim, Young H. Kim, and Grant S. Kim: full acquisition in fee. The properties are further identified in the legal definitions, descriptions and depictions attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively. California eminent domain law provides that a public entity may not commence with eminent domain proceedings until its governing body has adopted a resolution of necessity, which resolution may only be adopted after the governing body has given each party with an interest in the affected property, or their representatives, a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on the following matters: 1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and 4. The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. Notices of the hearing were sent by first class mail to the property owners, and stated the Commission's intent to consider the adoption of resolutions, the right of the property owners to appear and be heard on these issues, and that failure to file a written request to appear would result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission has scheduled this hearing Agenda Item 7 3 at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date of notice was mailed may appear and be heard. The Commission's legal counsel mailed the required notices to the property owners, on March 7, 2019, in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1245.235. The property owners were also invited to meet with Commission and Caltrans staff to address any concerns the property owners may have with the design of the Project in the manner proposed and the necessity of the acquisition. The four required findings are addressed as follows: Finding 1: Public Interest And Necessity Require The Proposed Project The Project will reduce traffic congestion and enhance safety, and will ensure compliance with Caltrans' standards for design. Finding 2: The Project Is Planned Or Located In A Manner That Will Be Most Compatible With The Greatest Public Good And The Least Private Injury A thorough analysis was conducted to find the single best location for this Project. Environmental analyses and findings indicate that these sites uniquely satisfy the engineering, public health, and environmental issues, and these locations are the most compatible with the greatest public good. These locations will result in the least private injury. Finding 3: The Property Sought To Be Acquired Is Necessary For The Proposed Project As described above, a careful analysis was performed regarding these locations and what property and property rights were needed, and these parcels meet all the desired characteristics for the construction of the improvements for the Project. Based on that analysis, the acquisition of the properties is necessary for construction of the Project, Finding 4: The Offer Of Just Compensation Has Been Made Appraisals were prepared by the Commission's appraiser Joyce L. Riggs, MAI, SR/WA, of Riggs & Riggs, Inc., to establish the fair market value of the real property the Commission is seeking to acquire from the interest owned by the property owners identified herein. Offers of just compensation were made to the property owners to purchase the property interests, based on the approved appraisals, as required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code. Although negotiated settlements may still be possible, it would be appropriate to commence the procedures to acquire the interests sought through eminent domain, to ensure that the property will be available to meet the time frames associated with the construction of the I-215/Placentia Interchange. Agenda Item 7 4 Environmental Analysis: Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act has been satisfied by the Commission's certification of an Environmental Impact Report in its role as lead agency on April 8, 2015. Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact. Notice of Public Hearing: Notices of Hearing to Property Owners were mailed on March 7, 2019, to Robert Barker; Dorothy Jo Barker; Chang Z. Kim, Young H. Kim, and Grant S. Kim, the owners of record. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 19-005 2) Resolution No. 19-006 Agenda Item 7 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 19-005 RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FEE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN ALL OR PORTIONS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 305-050-051 AND 305-050-055 (CPNs 1009 AND 1010), LOCATED IN PERRIS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 215 AND PLACENTIA AVENUE, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") proposes to acquire fee and temporary construction easement interests in certain real property, located in Riverside County, California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel Nos. 305-050-051 and 305-050-055 (CPNs 1009 and 1010), for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, in Riverside County, California, pursuant to the authority granted to it by section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Commission scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 9:30 a.m., at the County Administration Building, Board of Supervisors Chambers, at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, and gave to each person whose property is to be acquired and whose name and address appeared on the last equalized county assessment roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear at said hearing and be heard on the matters referred to in section 1240.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and WHEREAS, said hearing has been held by the Commission, and the affected property owner was afforded an opportunity to be heard on said matters; and WHEREAS, the Commission may now adopt a Resolution of Necessity pursuant to section 1240.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure. There has been compliance by the Commission with the requirements of section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure regarding notice and hearing. Section 2. Public Use. The public use for the fee and temporary construction easement interests in the property to be acquired is for the Mid County Parkway Project in Riverside County, California. Section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes the Commission to acquire, by eminent domain, property necessary for such purposes. Section 3. Description of Property. Attached and marked as Exhibit "A" are the legal definitions, legal descriptions and plat maps, respectively, of the interests to be acquired by the 6 Commission, which describe the general location and extent of the property with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. Section 4. Findings. The Commission hereby finds and determines each of the following: (a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; (c) The property defined and described in Exhibit "A" is necessary for the proposed project; and (d) The offer required by section 7267.2 of the California Government Code was made. Section 5. Use Not Unreasonably Interfering with Existing Public Use. Some or all of the real property affected by the interest to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. The legal descriptions of these easements and rights -of -way are on file with the Commission and describe the general location and extent of the easements and rights -of -way with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. In the event the herein described use or uses will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described interest subject to such existing public use pursuant to section 1240.510 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Section 6. More Necessary Public Use. Some or all of the real property affected by the interest to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. To the extent that the herein described use or uses will unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, the Commission finds and determines that the herein described use or uses are more necessary than said existing public use. Counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described real property appropriated to such existing public uses pursuant to section 1240.610 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Staff is further authorized to make such improvements to the affected real property that it determines are reasonably necessary to mitigate any adverse impact upon the existing public use. Section 7. Further Activities. Counsel for the Commission is hereby authorized to acquire the hereinabove described real property in the name of and on behalf of the Commission by eminent domain, and counsel is authorized to institute and prosecute such legal proceedings as may be required in connection therewith. Legal counsel is further authorized to take such steps as may be authorized and required by law, and to make such security deposits as may be required by order of 7 court, to permit the Commission to take possession of and use said real property at the earliest possible time. Counsel is further authorized to correct any errors or to make or agree to non -material changes in the legal description of the real property that are deemed necessary for the conduct of the condemnation action, or other proceedings or transactions required to acquire the subject real property. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of May, 2019. Chuck Washington, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 8 EXHIBIT "A" FEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 305-050-051 BEING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, LYING IN THE CITY OF PERRIS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED JULY 18, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 1963-75284, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LAND AS SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP FILED AS RIV.CO 205-228, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD AND NORTH LINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 85°19'34" WEST 47.78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 85° 19'34" WEST 241.52 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF ROUTE 215 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1. NORTH 52°27'32" WEST 88.82 FEET; 2. NORTH 23°42'21" WEST 228.45 FEET; 3. NORTH 37°23' 17" WEST 597.88 FEET; 4. NORTH 35°20'14" WEST 525.49 FEET; 5. NORTH 29°26'54" WEST 148.20 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF WALNUT STREET (30.00 FOOT HALF -WIDTH) AS ON SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP FILED AS RIV.CO 205-229, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 88°05'02" EAST 20.11 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 32°01'59" EAST 233.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38°13'23" EAST 327.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46°06'37" EAST 463.29 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°58'44" EAST 270.26 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 504.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°40'40" AN ARC LENGTH OF 384.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 13°18'04" EAST 87.21 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1 9 THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 179,806 SQUARE FEET OR 4.128 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS' ACT. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 6 (NAD83) 1991.35 EPOCH. DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY .999924951 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HEREWITH AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. JAMES R. RIOS, PLS 8823 DATE 10 E N C- 5-050-051 a. tlwq, EXHIBIT 1 \I I V \ �\ I I I N_J_ — !� LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N8519'34"W 241.52' L2 N5227'32"W 88.82' L3 N23'42'21"W 228.45' L4 N3723'17"W 597.88' L5 N35'2014"W 525.49' L6 N2926'54'W 148.20' L7 S88'05'02"E 20.11' L8 S32'01'59"E 233.74' L9 53813'23"E 327.06' L10 S46'06'37"E 463.29' L11 S56'58'44"E 270.26' L12 S1318'04"E 87.21' L13 N8519'34'W 47.78' „B„ i i I APN: 30 i020-031 L_. L--- — i f- - WALNUT ST. POR. NW 1/4, SEC. A8, T.4S., R.3W., S.B.M. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE IN TERMS OF THE CAUFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF OF 1983 (EPOCH 1991.35), ZONE VI. ALL NON -RECORD DISTANCES ARE GRID DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY 0.999924951. LEGEND 1//////A DESCRIPTION AREA 179t806 SQ. FT / 4►128AcREI AFFECTED PROPERTY CENTERUNE ADJACENT PROPERTY APN: 305-050-051 L-- _L - \ APN: 305-050-055 L1 T.P.O.B. PLACENTIA AVENUE \ P.O.B. N SCALE 1" = loot SHEET 1 OF 1 -rowILLIni s 0erviceain0 and G 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite C-190 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5858 (909) 303-7960 - www.towill.com 11 EXHIBIT "A" Fee LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 305-050-055 BEING THAT PORTION OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED JULY 18, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 75284, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, LYING EASTERLY OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD (100.00 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAPS FILED AS RIV. CO.205-228 AND 205-229, LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF PERRIS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EAST FRONTAGE ROAD NORTH 00°33'54" EAST 131.94 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE SOUTH 84°26'24" EAST 256.37 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°27'08" EAST 72.93 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF A 100.00 WIDE STRIP OF LAND, SAID WESTERLY LINE BEING A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 750.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 82°21'07" EAST, THE CENTERLINE OF SAID STRIP BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BELOW AS STRIP "A"; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42°20'54", AN ARC LENGTH OF 554.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49°59'47" WEST 238.11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EAST FRONTAGE ROAD, SAID EASTERLY LINE BEING A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1250.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 63°04'39" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°04'26", AN ARC LENGTH OF 503.40 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID STRIP "A"; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE SOUTH 49°59'47" EAST 728.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 850.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°45'26", AN ARC LENGTH OF 352.45 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LAND; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 00°32'51" WEST 442.06 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LAND; I 12 THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LAND NORTH 88°18'04" WEST 325.17 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 127,357 SQUARE FEET OR 2.924 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. STRIP "A": COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP FILED AS RIV.CO 205-228, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 88°18'01" EAST 365.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 01°41'57" EAST 47.73 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51°41'43", AN ARC LENGTH OF 721.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49°59'47" WEST 846.26 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP AND THE POINT OF TERMINATION; BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 6 (NAD83) 1991.35 EPOCH. DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY .999924951 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HEREWITH AND MADE A PART HEREOF. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS' ACT. 07/30/2018 S R. RIOS, PLS 8823 DATE 13 CO N N 0-055 (1018)`305-050-05 r EXHIBIT "B" WALNUT STREET- - P.O.T. STRIP "A" \q0e 4,vo 'F9• POR. NW 1 /4 SEC. 18, T.4S., R.3W., S.B.M. APN: 305-050-051 NO'33'13"E 131.94' APN: 305-050-055 a,. PLACENTIA AVENUE T—� —P.O9B. S8818'04"E 365.35' BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE IN TERMS OF THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (EPOCH 1991.35), ZONE VI. ALL NON -RECORD DISTANCES ARE GRID DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY 0.999924951 DESCRIPTION AREA 127,357 SQ. FT / 2924 ACRES AFFECTED PROPERTY CENTERLINE ADJACENT PROPERTY 0 CO r VM W \N1'41'57"E j 11 -STRIP "A" N SCALE 1" = 200' SHEET 1 OF 1 PlzTOWILL Ian sIS $ervieeslng 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite C-190 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5858 (909) 303-7960 - www.towill.com 14 EXHIBIT "A" TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 305-050-055 BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, LYING IN THE CITY OF PERRIS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED JULY 18, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 1963-75284, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: STRIP 1: BEING A STRIP OF LAND 10.00 FEET WIDE, THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID STRIP MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP FILED AS RIV.CO 205-228, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 00°33'54" EAST 131.94 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE SOUTH 84°26'24" EAST 157.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINATION; THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 1,581 SQUARE FEET OR 0.036 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. STRIP 2: BEING A STRIP OF LAND 10.00 FEET WIDE, THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID STRIP MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP FILED AS RIV.CO 205-228, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 00°33'54" EAST 131.94 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE SOUTH 84°26'24" EAST 256.37 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°27'08" EAST 72.93 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF A 100.00- FOOT-WIDE STRIP OF LAND AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID WESTERLY LINE BEING A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 750.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 82°21'07" EAST, THE CENTERLINE OF SAID STRIP BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BELOW AS FUTURE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42°20'54" AN ARC LENGTH OF 554.34 FEET; 1 15 THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 49°59'47" WEST 102.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINATION; THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 25,380 SQUARE FEET OR 0.583 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. STRIP 3: BEING A STRIP OF LAND 10.00 FEET WIDE, THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID STRIP MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND NORTH 00°32'51" EAST 442.06 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF A 100.00-FOOT-WIDE STRIP OF LAND AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID EASTERLY LINE BEING A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 850.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 63°45'39" EAST, THE CENTERLINE OF SAID STRIP BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BELOW AS FUTURE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°13'20", AN ARC LENGTH OF 196.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINATION; THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 1,876 SQUARE FEET OR 0.430 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. FUTURE STREET: BEING A STRIP OF LAND 100.00 FEET WIDE, LYING WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, LYING IN THE CITY OF PERRIS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED JULY 18, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 1963-75284, THE CENTERLINE OF SAID STRIP BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 88°18'01" EAST 365.35 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NORTH 01°41'57" EAST 47.73 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51 °41'43", AN ARC LENGTH OF 721.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49°59'47" WEST 846.26 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF EAST 2 16 FRONTAGE ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP AND THE POINT OF TERMINATION; BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 6 (NAD83) 1991.35 EPOCH. DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY .999924951 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HEREWITH AND MADE A PART HEREOF. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS' ACT. R. RIOS, PLS 8823 17 E o° Jffice\l.egols\305-050-055 (1010)\305-050-055A.dwg; Jul 23. 2018 — • \ 4 POR. NW 1 /4 SEC. 18, T.4S., R.3W., S.B.M. BEARINGS APN: 305-050-051 EXHIBIT "B" ----I 1—WALNUT STREET \ 1 l \ I \ I T.P.O.6. —STRIP ; STRIPS 1 & 2 �- PLACENTIA \ \ SEE \ SHEET 3 \ T.P.O.B. STRIP 3 SEE SHEET 3 T.P.O.B. STRIP 2 SEE SHEET 2 AVENUE AND DISTANCES ARE IN TERMS OF THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (EPOCH 1991.35), ZONE VI. ALL NON -RECORD DISTANCES ARE GRID DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY 0.999924951 7//////1 DESCRIPTION AREAS 10,027 SQ. FT / 0.230 ACRES AFFECTED PROPERTY CENTERLINE ADJACENT PROPERTY o d- �t � m m N r N -- O 1,0 N 00 • m m a: rr) SCALE 1" = 200' SHEET 1 OF 4 riETowiLL I and 61S Se aging 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite C-190 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5858 (909) 303-7960 - wvvw.towill.com 18 23, 2018 — 10:11am th a tr) 0 b 0 J: \IE0Jobs\15238 RCTC 1215—P1a 0 Q 0 CZ W C9 Q F- Z O CZ Li W EXHIBIT "B" APN: 305-050-055 0 S84'26'241 157.69' T.P.O.B. E'LY LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD P.O.B. STRIP 1, 2 & FUTURE STREET 0 P.O.T. FUTURE R/W CENTERLINE OF /- PLACENTIA AVE. PLACENTIA AVENUE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE IN TERMS OF THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (EPOCH 1991.35), ZONE VI. ALL NON -RECORD DISTANCES ARE GRID DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY 0.999924951 DESCRIPTION AREA STRIP 1 1,581 SQ. FT / 0.036 ACRES AFFECTED PROPERTY CENTERLINE ADJACENT PROPERTY N 0 SCALE 1" = 40' SHEET 2 OF 2 TETOWILL I Inglervlcesi"0 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite C-190 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5858 (909) 303-7960 - www.towill.com 19 J:\IEOJbbs\15238 RCTC 1215—Placentiat0ffice/Lego15 N �N P.O.t . `,9. 6: N\ �,�. k S \ 6,6 EXHIBIT "B" I E. FRONTAGE ROAD r//////A �O APN: 305-050-055 POR. NW 1 /4 SEC. 18, T.4S., R.3W., S.B.M. FUTURE R/W S84 26'24"E P.O.B. STRIP 1, 2 & FUTURE STREET FUTURE R/W SEE SHEET 4 ,n 0 CV T.P.O.B. STRIP 2 /g � 256:7' f� k PLACENTIA AVE. S8818'04"E 365.35' DESCRIPTION AREA STRIP 2 6.570 SO. Fr / 0.151 ACRES AFFECTED PROPERTY CENTERLINE — ADJACENT PROPERTY T.P.O.B. FUTURE STREET N 1 0 2 T.P.O.B. STRIP 3 \ r) CD co \ m d \ a_ I 1 11 1 N82'21 p7 �RAD, ti I 1 l -- N1'41'57"E 43.73' — - N SCALE in = 8 0' SHEET 3 OF 4 fiDWiLL Iin eri Servreesing 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite C-190 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5858 (909) 303-7960 - www.towill.com 20 :\1E0Jnbs`15238 RCTC 1215—Placentia\OfOcALegGIs130.5-050-055 (1010 \3 EXHIBIT "B" APN: 305-050-055 \ POR. NW 1 /4 \\ SEC. 18, T.4S., R.3W., \ S.B.M. ` FUTURE R/W DESCRIPTION AREA STRIP 3 1,878 sQ. FT / 0.430 ACRES AFFECTED PROPERTY CENTERLINE ADJACENT PROPERTY T.P.O.B. \ STRIP 3 Ln rrf-) N CD- C N 1 1 1 1 a co N SCALE 1" = 40' SHEET 4 OF 4 m o_ TOW1LL I ItVri Servleeslag and G 1E, 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite C-190 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5858 (909) 303-7960 - www.towill.com 21 EXHIBIT "A" FEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 305-050-051 BEING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, LYING IN THE CITY OF PERRIS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED JULY 18, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 1963-75284, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LAND AS SHOWN ON THE MONUMENTATION MAP FILED AS RIV.CO 205-228, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF EAST FRONTAGE ROAD AND NORTH LINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 85°19'34" WEST 47.78 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 13°18'04" WEST 87.21 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 504.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°25'37" AN ARC LENGTH OF 91.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°18'04" EAST 96.42 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID EAST FRONTAGE ROAD BEING A CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1150.01 FEET, A RADIAL BEARING THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS N87°07'27" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°25'47", AN ARC LENGTH OF 68.84 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 00°33' 13" WEST 103.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 11,958 SQUARE FEET OR 0.275 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS' ACT. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 6 (NAD83) 1991.35 EPOCH. DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY .999924951 TO OBTAIN GROUND LEVEL DISTANCES. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HEREWITH AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. JAMES R. RIOS, PLS 8823 DATE 1 22 2018 - 3:07pm EXHIBIT NNi\i lNN N \! I �— LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L14 N8519'34"W 47.78' L15 N1318'04"W 87.21' L16 S8818'04"E 96.42' L17 S00'33'13"W 103.95' L18 N87'07'27"E RADIAL „ B „ APN i 30 i020-031 —L._L_L CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH C1 10'25'37" 504.00' 91.72' C2 325'47" 1150.01' 68.84' LEGEND 17//////i WALNUT ST. cF � "raih\ N \ 'rat \ \ POR. NW 1/4, SEC. A8, T.4S., R.3W., S.B.M. • • • • • • \• APN: 305-050-051 \ APN: 305-050-055 FUTURE FREEWAY RIGHT OF WAY u/6 sr' L14 J PLACENTIA AVENUE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE IN TERMS OF THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF OF 1983 (EPOCH 1991.35), ZONE VI. ALL PAS. N 0 SCALE NON —RECORD DISTANCES ARE GRID DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GROUND 100, DISTANCES DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY 0.999924951. SHE 1 OF 1 DESCRIPTION AREA 11,958 SQ. FT / 0.275 ACRES AFFECTED PROPERTY CENTERLINE ADJACENT PROPERTY rt TOW! LL 12Nr Be liegi np and GI 10390 Commerce Center Drive, Suite C-190 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5858 (909) 303-7960 - www.towill.com 23 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 19-006 RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A FEE INTEREST IN THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 305-060-010 (CPN 1012), LOCATED IN PERRIS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 215 AND PLACENTIA AVENUE, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") proposes to acquire a fee interest in certain real property, located in Riverside County, California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-010 (CPN 1012), for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, in Riverside County, California, pursuant to the authority granted to it by section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Commission scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 9:30 a.m., at the County Administration Building, Board of Supervisors Chambers, at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, and gave to each person whose property is to be acquired and whose name and address appeared on the last equalized county assessment roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear at said hearing and be heard on the matters referred to in section 1240.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and WHEREAS, said hearing has been held by the Commission, and the affected property owner was afforded an opportunity to be heard on said matters; and WHEREAS, the Commission may now adopt a Resolution of Necessity pursuant to section 1240.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure. There has been compliance by the Commission with the requirements of section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure regarding notice and hearing. Section 2. Public Use. The public use for the fee interests in the property to be acquired is for the Mid County Parkway Project in Riverside County, California. Section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes the Commission to acquire, by eminent domain, property necessary for such purposes. 24 Section 3. Description of Property. Attached and marked as Exhibit "A" are the legal description and plat map of the interest to be acquired by the Commission, which describe the general location and extent of the property with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. Section 4. Findings. The Commission hereby finds and determines each of the following: (a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; (c) The property defined and described in Exhibit "A" is necessary for the proposed project; and (d) The offer required by section 7267.2 of the California Government Code was made. Section 5. Use Not Unreasonably Interfering with Existing Public Use. Some or all of the real property affected by the interest to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. The legal descriptions of these easements and rights -of -way are on file with the Commission and describe the general location and extent of the easements and rights -of -way with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. In the event the herein described use or uses will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described interest subject to such existing public use pursuant to section 1240.510 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Section 6. More Necessary Public Use. Some or all of the real property affected by the interest to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. To the extent that the herein described use or uses will unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, the Commission finds and determines that the herein described use or uses are more necessary than said existing public use. Counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described real property appropriated to such existing public uses pursuant to section 1240.610 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Staff is further authorized to make such improvements to the affected real property that it determines are reasonably necessary to mitigate any adverse impact upon the existing public use. Section 7. Further Activities. Counsel for the Commission is hereby authorized to acquire the hereinabove described real property in the name of and on behalf of the Commission by eminent 25 domain, and counsel is authorized to institute and prosecute such legal proceedings as may be required in connection therewith. Legal counsel is further authorized to take such steps as may be authorized and required by law, and to make such security deposits as may be required by order of court, to permit the Commission to take possession of and use said real property at the earliest possible time. Counsel is further authorized to correct any errors or to make or agree to non -material changes in the legal description of the real property that are deemed necessary for the conduct of the condemnation action, or other proceedings or transactions required to acquire the subject real property. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of May, 2019. Chuck Washington, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 26 LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF RIGHTS TO BE ACQUIRED "Fee," also known as fee simple or fee simple absolute, grants to Riverside County Transportation ("RCTC"), absolute ownership of the interests in the portion of the property to be acquired. EXHIBIT A, PAGE 1 OF 3 27 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-010) FEE THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 'WST SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; EXCEPTION THEREFROM A STRIP OF LAND 30 FEET WIDE ALONG THE EASTERLY SIDE THEREOF HERETOFORE CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 440 FEET THEREOF. (APN 305-060-010) EXHIBIT A, PAGE 2 OF 3 28 rrslw.Asiu.,..tarpeasse+s.nroomincham Ist&roT , N 112, SW 114. SEC. 18, T.4S., R.3W. 44/1W[o rat 1N1 KS: FAV d rir OalipELLA A411410t1 In0e+ Fir 101 CAW AVM Mk 101.p1L1 OE OOLOw01A1C+A1.11431 1 t;iTY Or pERR15 7 Pas LOT 1 a 101CJJK Y V \ t 5 �l i \ 5 !AR 1 ! V 1 IIMR7 \LP \ i -.l ,I Ewa f 60 vim rALWIA M4.61415 I rain 0o aoree 1104 1 ASSFSEELE1 RAP Et IV! 1.6 OE rt►aru. R9ME PntnAa County WI. 9Nrno Filer V I i ^•' A l• Y n Y� 7 LOT! TAIL 9011 121 046410 A B C 3 /LIAM C r— Ie If frinEtt 6 si sJ Yapreirenr. M Ir5 OAKS AKISAWYER551H Aa INIA FICA66TA FARAA5110.14 W IMF PARCEL IMANI IQu 1 5 I Yq 1017 305-06 wwwl t- LF --- MAY O ., .... Illvt.+a.. ..... 1.. •1.. .••• avww rc.. EXHIBIT A, PAGE 3 OF 3 29 TYLIN INTERNATIONAL 0 225' 450' 900' *Mid -County Parkway (shown in blue) is not part of project. 1-215 / Placentia Ave Interchange SCALE: 1" = 150' 30 Attachment 1 Vicinity Map RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REQUEST OF COMMISSION THE COMM! SSI ON I S REQU I RED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and 4. The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION VU.9116ied1r1.i.L41411 - r•1 + _ 1-215/Placentia Ave IC P5&E Project Overview n2/21l1 S TyLININ I ERNAE IONAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EXISTING BARKER FAMILY TRUST PARCEL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION BARKER FAMILY TRUST PARCELS AFTER PROJECT COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ORIGINAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION BY CALTRANS f - .4 ; C.., - r S r'Ir arri .__ .4,.. _.. eg FP ._ .._ /. Ft.."1, _ _......— —_ 1.2...._ —1..;' - .. . . , ''''' 1 c.,.-Es f•iiveR-Ri•sl_f Aciip-mw-.. inqaPinON *..r..t it -a o.c. NAV- -.." i4w73„ 40 .7.' cii- .? ' , - FIGAOOLA NMI la r'e...311.._:::::.i.:71...... ...m-..- 1•1131.WP I. SF - , - . ... e - ' 'T 4 "217 [8. L, _ _ . - 1 4 .. 'II .' r r- T int...I -.-i R CII. Original Bartcer Family Trust Parcel Boundaries TFUS MA. SUPERSEDES PORTIONS OF MAP - 815007-7k 815008 • Evis ft.ri . .isiernr g -F •• - • 16_233 Acre remnant RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION KIM FAMILY TRUST PARCEL LOCATION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMM! SSI ON ADOPT A RESOLUTI ON OF N ECESSI TY BASED ON THE FOLLOW! N G FI N DI N GS: 1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and 4. The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. 3QOo dIZ A113 1331:1.LS =SS3aa01/ ss3Nisns df10119 / NOLLVZINVJaO / A3N3i1V 3WVN ='ON 3N0Hd �,'�"jy :9NI1N3S311d31:11 3aoo dI 9 &// ��' �u e�� �o� �g�C' :ss�aaav �,SG�1�"'�%°��j�Pj� '�ON 3NOHd G�f�r� �juY10A � bUrJl.+/� -31/Vt/N 55a7e 0 1,401147 0 Sa:W311 VaN3911 (VaN3DV 3H1 NO 431S17 SV) � d0133f'8AS rON W311 daN3Dd :S1N3WW03 oI18(ld O :S1N3WW03 oIlBAd d0133P8AS 3133H3 /40-e daV08 3H1 d0 N!l313 3H1 O111W8AS aNV H311134 AGENDA ITEM 8 PUBLIC HEARING RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2019/20 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the proposed Fiscal Year 2019/20 Budget; and 2) Open the public hearing in order to receive input and comments on the proposed FY 2019/20 Budget on May 8 and on June 12, 2019, and thereafter close the public hearing. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff completed the initial budget preparation process and the attached executive summary for the proposed FY 2019/20 Budget. The policy goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 13 were the basis for this budget. The long-term policy goals that support the Commission's objectives considered during the preparation of the budget relate to promoting quality of life; achieving operational excellence; connecting the economy; being a responsible partner; and maintaining fiscal accountability. Staff will present highlights of significant items included in the budget and is seeking review of an input on the proposed FY 2019/20 Budget. Additionally staff recommends opening of the public hearing on May 8. As a result of input received from the public and the Commission, staff will make the necessary changes to the budget document for the Commission's final review, closing of the public hearing, and adoption at its June 12 Commission meeting. The Commission's budget is primarily project -driven, although the RCTC 91 Express Lanes added a service -driven component upon the commencement of toll operations in March 2017. As a project -driven agency, the Commission accumulates funds, or reserves, for specific projects and programs — resulting in flexibility to adjust project development or programs especially in times of economic downturns. The proposed FY 2019/20 Budget anticipates that total uses will exceed sources by approximately $142.8 million. Similar to prior years, the accumulated reserves, which include bond proceeds issued in FY 2017/18, will fund the deficiency. In the executive summary, Agenda Item 8 31 Table 16 provides a summary of the projected fund balance at June 30, 2020, and tables 17-19 provide a summary of budgeted sources and uses from different perspectives (comparative, operating and capital, and fund). Preliminary funding estimates for transit operating and capital expenditures have been included in the budget, although the draft Short Range Transit Plans are still under review. An adjustment for a revised estimate of these transit expenditures may be included in the final budget document presented in June 2019. A summary of the proposed FY 2019/20 Budget is as follows: FY 2019/20 Budget Revenues and other financing sources: Sales taxes -Measure A and Local Transportation Funds $ 290,000,000 Reimbursements (federal, state, and other) 272,475,800 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Funds, including reimbursements 25,000,000 State Transit Assistance 31,050,600 Tolls, penalties, and fees 41,869,400 Other revenues 553,000 Interest on investments 12,754,300 Debt proceeds 75,703,000 Transfers in 165,207,900 Total revenues and other financing sources 914,614,000 Expenditures and other financing uses: Personnel salaries and fringe benefits 19,396,500 Professional services 25,447,300 Support services 12,383,200 Projects and operations 753,055,300 Capital outlay 5,288,000 Debt service (principal and interest) 76,654,400 Transfers out 165,207,900 Total expenditures and other financing uses 1,057,432,600 Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (142,818,600) Beginning fund balance (projected) 792,310,100 Ending fund balance (projected) $ 649,491,500 In the proposed FY 2019/20 Budget, staff included approximately $8.1 million to pay off the Commission's estimated net pension liability as of June 30, 2019, which is based on an actuarial valuation. Paying off the net pension liability is projected to save approximately $7.5 million in Agenda Item 8 32 interest charges. Staff intends to present this recommendation for approval at the May Executive Committee meeting, immediately preceding the May Commission meeting. At its June 12 Commission meeting, staff will present the entire budget document with detailed narratives. Attachment: Executive Summary for the Proposed FY 2019/20 Budget Agenda Item 8 33 Executive Summary Introduction The budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019/20 is presented to the Board of Commissioners (Board) and the citizensof Riverside County. The budget outlinesthe projectsthe Commission plansto undertake during the year and appropriatesexpendituresto accomplish these tasks. The budget also showsthe funding sources and fund balances for these projects. phis document serves as the Commission's monetary guideline for the fiscal year. To provide the reader a better understanding of the projects, staff has included descriptive information regarding each department and major projects. The discussion in each department includesa review of accomplishments, major initiatives, and key assumptions. Policy Goals and Objectives Asapproved at its March 13, 2019 meeting, the Commission isd riven by fourcore goalsand underlying objectivesforthe people of Riverside County and the transportation system upon which they rely: • UALITY • F UFE RCTC is focused on improving life for the people ofRiverside County and empowering them to live life at their •ace. Environmental Stewardship Access Goods Movement RCTC empowersthe resdentsof Riverside County to choose how to get safely to where they are going. RCTC protectsand preservesthe County'senvironmentforourresidents. RCTC providesaccess, equity, and choice in transportation; RCM isa mobility partner. RCTC projects are the connection to employment, schools, community institutions, parks, medical facilitiesand shopping in the community. RCTC facilitates the funding and delivery of projects that mitigate the impact of increased goodsmovement flow through Riverside County. OPERATIONAL EXC ELLEN C E RCTC is responsible and conservative steward of tax a erdollarx State of Good Repair Promises Fulfilled Innovation Information ROTC investsin road safety and maintenance in itsresidents' neighborhoods. Projectsare completed on -time, on -budget; RCTC deliverson itspromi%sasa steward of Riverside County residents' investment. Program and project delivery innovations drive results, savings, and greater economic opportunitiesfor Riverside County residents. RCTC operationsare transparent; customers get fast, timely, quality service. CONNECTING THEECONOMY RCTC is driver of economic wth in F5verside County. Workforce Mobility Population Growth Economic Impact RCTC improves the economy by creating a robust workforce to workplace system; ROTC helps move the economy of Riverside County. Snce 1976, RCTC hasbeen responsible forconnecting our County'seconomy asthe County'spopulation hasquadrupled from 550,000to 2.3 million today. RCTC hasinvested $4 billion in the County'seconomythanksto Measure A and future toll revenues, which has a multiplier impact in terms of jobs and economic opportunity throughout Riverside County. 34 RESPONSIBLE PA RTN ER Streets and Roads Active Transportation Facilities d state ovemmentsto deliver road and transit pro"ects. RCTC invests in local priorities for maintaining streets and roads and fixing potholes. RCTC is a partner with transit operators to provide residents mobility choices, flexibility, intercity and intercounty connectivity, and access. RCTC is a partner with agencies within the County to promote active transportation alternatives, including the building of regional trails and bicycle and pedestrian facilities in accordance with local general master and active transportation plans. RCTC isa steward of state and federal grantsto improve our communities. RCM invests Measure A dollars into projects and programs that benefit local communitiesthroughout the County. Staff used these core goalsand objectivesto prepare thisbudget and develop the following short-term objectivesto guide furtherthe development of the FY2019/20 budget. Capital Project Development and Delivery • Continue design and construction of the Interstate (I) 15 Express Lanes and development of the 71/91 interchange improvements, State Route(SR) 60truck climbing lanes, and Mid County Parkway projectsincluded in the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan. • Commence development of the 1-15 ExpressLanes—Southem Extension project. • Maintain and enhance communication and collaboration with Caltrans to improve the Commission'sability to deliver critical projects. • Enhance corridor mobility and traveler choice with the operation of the express lanes and development of the next generation toll projects. • Collaborate with local jurisdictions to implement the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (IUMF) regional arterial program projects and facilitate the delivery of eligible arterial improvements in western Riverside County (Western County). • Continue active engagement in state and federal effortsto streamline and modernize the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to improve the Commission'sability to deliver critical projects. Toll Operations • Efficiently operate express lanes and achieve high customer satisfaction through reduction in congestion, mobility improvements, and management of demand. Regional Programs • Maintain an active involvement in state and federal legislative matters to ensure that the Commission receivesproper consideration fortransportation projectsand funding. • Complete the development of a county -wide transportation plan and the first ten-year update of the 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan, asrequired by the ordinance. • Subsidize reliable and cost-effective Metrolink commuter rail service to and from Riverside County; Southern Califomia Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) isthe operator of Metrolink. • Provide leadership in the planning and development of the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass corridor rail service. • Support innovative programsthat provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areasor for riders with special transit needs. • Promote cost controlsand operating efficiency fortransit operators. • Maintain effective partnerships among commuters, employers, and govemment to increase the efficiency of our transportation system by encouraging and promoting motorized and non - motorized transportation alternatives. • Provide a motorist aid system that ensuressafety and convenience to freeway motorists. 35 Management Services • Maintain close communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of importance to the Commission. • Develop and execute a communications and public engagement strategy for the purposes of education, information, and customerservice. • Maintain administrative program delivery costs below the policy threshold of 4% of Measure A revenues; the FY2019/20 Management Servicesbudget is1.48%of Measure A revenues. • Maintain administrative salariesand benefitsat lessthan 1%of Measure A revenues; the FY2019/20 administrative salaries and benefits is 0.73% of Measure A revenues before the one-time disbursement to pay off the Commission's California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) net pension liability. The administrative program share of the $8.1 million net pension liability is$2.5 million, or31%. The inclusion of thisone-time disbursement in FY2019/20 results in the administrative salaries and benefits at 1.39%of Measure A revenues; however, the one-time disbursement to pay off the net pension liability is related to the projected benefits to employees for past service. Accordingly, the impact to the administrative salaries and benefitswill be retroactively applied to priorfiscal yearswithout exceeding the 1%limitation in FY2019/20 orpriorfiscal years. • Maintain prudent cash reservesto provide some level of insulation for unplanned expenditures. • Maintain current strong bond ratingswith rating agencies. • Establish and maintain revenues and reserves generated from toll operations to be available for debt service in accordance with toll supported debt agreements; maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, administration and operations; and capital projectswithin the corridor. Linking Commission Policy Goals and Departmental Goals and Objectives the following matrix (Table 1) illustratesthe linkage of the Commission'score policy goalsdescribed in thissection to the individual departmental goalsand objectivesincluded in Section 5. Table 1 —Relationship between Commission and Departmental Goals Department 1 Quality of Life Operational 6cc a Ile nc e Connecting the Econom Responsible Pa rtne r Executive Mana•ement Administration ExtemaI Affairs Re • iona I Pro • rams Plannin• and Pro•rammin• Rail Maintenance and O •erations Public and Specialized Transit Commuter Assista nce Motorist Assista nc e C a p ita I Pro'e ct Development and De live Toll O • erations Budget Overview X X X X X X )MI1PF X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Total sources (Table 2) are budgeted at $914,614,000, an increase of 17% over FY 2018/19 projected sourcesand flat over the FY2018/19 budget. Total sourcesare comprised of revenuesof $673,703,100, transfersin of $165,207,900, and debt proceedsof $75,703,000. The projected fund balance at June 30, 2019 available for expenditures/expenses(excluding amountsrestricted for debt service of $14,422,700 and advances receivable of $22,986,000) is$754,901,400. Accordingly, total funding available for the FY2019/20 budget totals$1,669,515,400. 36 Table 2 —Sources FY 2018-2020 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Measure A Sales Tax $ 176,301,700 $ 192,000,000 $ 192,000,000 $ 193,000,000 $ 1,000,000 1% LTF Sales Tax 89,557,600 96,000,000 96,000,000 97,000,000 1,000,000 1% STA SaIesTax 21,320,900 23,203,600 27,110,700 31,050,600 7,847,000 34% Intergovernmental 88,207,000 249,188,300 160,549,900 272,475,800 23,287,500 9% 1UMFRevenue 23,699,800 25,922,200 26,672,200 25,000,000 (922,200) -4% Tolls, Penalties, and Fees 50,446,800 36,940,500 47,756,900 41,869,400 4,928,900 13% Other Revenue 3,199,500 1,084,400 468,500 553,000 (531,400) -49% Investment Income 9,117,000 3,408,000 10,064,800 12,754,300 9,346,300 274% TransfersIn 323,263,800 182,214,300 158,206,600 165,207,900 (17,006,400) -9% Debt Proceeds 735,488,800 106,081,000 61,841,100 75,703,000 (30,378,000) -29% TOTAL Sources $ 1,520,602,900 $ 916,042,300 $ 780,670,700 $ 914,614,000 $ (1,428,300) 0% Riverside County has specific competitive advantages over nearby coastal counties (Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego), including housing that is more available and affordable aswell as plentiful commercial real estate and land available for development at lower costs. Riverside County's economy is benefitting from employment gains that are a function of the County's ability to attract businegms with lower commercial rents and a skilled labor force. Population migration to the Inland Empire (i.e., Riverside and San Bernardino counties) has occurred due to these employment opportunities and a lower cost of living compared to the coastal counties. Improvements in the local labor market and housing advantages have increased economic activity contributing to stable sales tax revenue growth asnoted on Chart 3. Chart 3 —Sources: Five -Year Trend $800,000,000 $700,000,000 $600,000,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 FY 15/ 16 FY 16/ 17 FY 17/ 18 FY 18/ 19 FY 19/20 4=1/Measlre A Sales Tax iL1F&lesTax mtSTA SalesTax �00=,1UM F �IO•Federa I, Sate, Local Revenues Tall Revenue �+ TransfersIn Debt Proceeds Salestax revenues have continued to remain stable during the last five fiscal years. The Commission's economic outlook for FY2019/20 continues to be cautiously optimistic; however, availability of state and federal funds could affect funding of the Commission's capital projects and programs. Should Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues fluctuate and the availability of federal and state revenues continue to be uncertain, the timing and scope of the Commission's projects and programs may be impacted. Regardlessof the future economic conditions, the Commission facesformidable ongoing challengesin termsof providing needed infrastructure enhancementsto support a population and an economy that has outgrown the capacity of its existing infrastructure. Fortunately, the foundation of the regional economy continuesto retain many of the fundamental positive attributesthat fueled itsearlier growth, including lower priced real estate with proximity to coastal communities, a large pool of skilled workers, and increasing wealth and education levels. While the Commission's primary revenues are the Measure A and LTF sales taxes, other revenues and financing sources are required to fund the Commission's programs and projects as illustrated in Chart 4. 37 Chart 4 —Sources: Major Categories Transfers In Inve3mentIncome 1° Tolls, Penalties, and Fees5% lUM FRevenue Debt Proceed :% % Intergovemmenta130% Measure A Sales Tax 21% L1FSales Tax 11% SRC. SaIesTax 3% The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), asstatutorily created and authorized successor to the former California State Board of Equalization, recently provided to cities and other agencies its projections that statewide taxable sales over the next fiscal year will increase 3.6%. Continuing its conservative projection practices, the Commission also considers short- and long-term sales tax projections from its consultants to estimate sales tax revenues. After taking the state of the local economy, recent revenue trends, and the impact of CDTFA new automation system delays into consideration, staff projects Measure A sales tax revenues of $193,000,000 for FY 2019/20. This is a 1% increase from the FY 2018/19 revised projection of $192,000,000, which reflects FY 2017/18 sales tax revenues proceed in FY 2018/19 due to CDTFA's new system implementation issues. These issues caused a backlog of unproce%-rd salestax retumsat the end of FY2017/18 that were proceed and reflected in FY2018/19. At midyearthe Commission will reascPsssalestax revenue projectionsba%d on the economy and revenue trends. On behalf of the County, the Commission administers the L1F for public transportation needs, local streets and roads, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The majority of LTF funding received by the County and available for allocation is distributed to all public transit operators in the County, and the Commission receives allocationsforadministration, planning, and programming in addition to funding for Western County rail operationsincluded in the commuter rail S#iort Range Transit Plan (SR -FP). The L1F sales tax revenue received from the State is budgeted at $97,000,000, an increase of 1%from the FY 2018/19 revised projection of$96,000,000. LTFsalestaxrevenuesin FY2017/18 and FY2018/19were also impacted by the CDTFA implementation issues. A statewide sales tax on motor vehicle diesel fuel generates STA funds, which the State Controller allocates by formula to the Commission for allocations to the County's public transit operators. Beginning in FY2017/18, Senate Bill (SB) 1 provides additional STA revenues, also referred to as State of Good Repair (SGR), for transit maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects. The FY 2019/20 STA/SGRallocations, based on recent State estimates, is$31,050,600. 38 Intergovernmental revenuesinclude reimbursement revenuesfrom federal sourcesof$88,718,700, state sources of $173,799,200, and local agencies of $9,957,900 for highway and rail capital projects, rail operationsand station maintenance, commuter assistance, and motorist assistance programsaswell as planning and programming activities. The increase of 9%in FY2019/20 compared to the FY2018/19 budget is related to increases in state and federal reimbursements offset by a decrease in local reimbursements. SB 132 providesstate funding forthe 15/91 ExpressLanesconnector and pass -through funding to the County forthe I-15/Limonite interchange and Hamner Bridge widening and to the County and city of Corona forgrade separation projects. Otherstate reimbursementswill fund the State Route (SR) 60 truck lanes, Pachappa underpass, and station rehabilitation projects. Federal reimbursements provide funding for the 1-15 Express Lanes, 1-15 Express Lanes— Southern Extension, SR60 truck lanes, Pachappa underpass, and station rehabilitation projects. Reimbursement revenuesvary from year to year depending on project activitiesand funding levels. Based on an amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Commission receives 45.7% of TUMF revenues (as updated by the most recent Nexusstudy). TUMFrepresentsfeesa-mid on new residential and commercial development in Western County. The Commission projects FY2019/20 TUMFfees will remain flat at $25,000,000. The 4%decrease is related to additional TUMF zone reimbursementsfor the Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon project in FY2018/19. FY 2018/19 marked the second complete fiscal year of toll operations for the RCTC 91 Express Lanes following substantial completion of the 91 Project in March 2017. Since toll revenues surpasscd 2013 financing assumptions, the Commission obtained an updated Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study in December 2018. The Commission conservatively estimates FY 2019/20 toll revenues of $41,869,400 based on current operations and the updated study. Other revenue of $553,000 includes property management generated from properties acquired in connection with varioushighway and rail properties. The Commission anticipates a 274% increase in FY 2019/20 investment income due to extremely conservative investment yield projections in the FY 2018/19 budget. The FY 2019/20 budget projects investment income at a 2%investment yield, compared to lessthan 1%in prior year budgets. Transfers in of $165,207,900 relate primarily to the transfer of available debt proceeds for highway projects; LTFfunding forgeneral administration, planning and programming, rail operations, and grade separation project allocations; approved interfund allocationsfor specific projects and administrative cost allocations; and debt service requirementsfrom highway, regional arterial, and local streets and roads funds. Debt proceeds consist of $75,703,000 in drawdowns from the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (T1FiA) loan related to the 1-15 Express Lanes project. Total uses (Table 3), including transfers out of $165,207,900, are budgeted at $1,057,432,600, a 6% decrease from the prioryear budget amount of $1,123,634,900. Program expendituresand transfersout totaling $956,364,700 represent 90%of total budgeted uses in FY2019/20. Program costs decreased by 5%from $1,003,365,500 in FY2018/19 due to projectsand programs identified below. 39 Table 3 — Uses FY 2018-2020 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Ca pita I Highway, Ra il, a nd Regional Arterials $ 517,040,000 $ 631,599,300 $ 430,098,100 $ 606,640,600 $ (24,958,700) -4% Capital Local areetsand Roads 53,176,800 58,479,500 58,479,500 58,642,300 162,800 0% Commuter Assistance 4,447,700 6,199,600 4,708,300 4,880,800 (1,318,800) -21% Debt rvice 664,013,700 96,675,600 92,205,600 76,654,400 (20,021,200) -21% Management Services 22,184,500 23,593,800 19,784,300 24,413,500 819,700 3% Motorist Assistance 4,909,300 10,004,600 7,946,300 9,364,500 (640,100) -6% Planning and Programming 4,293,800 20,464,700 6,045,300 14,512,900 (5,951,800) -29% Public and a)ecialized Transit 113,456,700 210,341,400 152,669,200 193,728,700 (16,612,700) -8% Rail Maintenance and Operations 24,161,700 41,119,800 34,413,400 46,228,500 5,108,700 12% Toll Operations 11,849,700 25,156,600 21,695,000 22,366,400 (2,790,200) -11% TOTAL Uses $ 1,419,533,900 $ 1,123,634,900 $ 828,045,000 $ 1,057,432,600 $ (66,202,300) -6% Note: Management ServicesincludesExecutive Management, Administration, Extemal Affairs, and Finance. Capital highway, rail, and regional arterials budgeted uses of $606,640,600 are 4%lower compared to the FY2018/19 budget due to project activity on the 1-15 Express Lanes, significant completion of a 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial (MARA) project, and decreased transfers out related to debt proceeds from the capital projects fund to a special revenue fund to finance 2009 Measure A Westem County highway projects. Local streetsand roadsexpendituresof $58,642,300 reflect an increase of $162,800 overthe FY2018/19 budget and represent the disbursements to local jurisdictions for the construction, repair, and maintenance of local streetsand roads. Commuterassistance budgeted expendituresof $4,880,800 are 21%lowerthan FY2018/19 budget due to transfersout fora transit incentive project in Western County in the prioryear. Debt service of $76,654,400 decreased 21% due to $20 million of toll -operation surplus revenues deposited to the 201311FIA loan reserve fund in FY2018/19 asrequired underthe 11RA loan agreement. Management services expenditures of $24,413,500 increased 3% primarily due to a one-time disbursement in FY2019/20 to fund the Commission'sCaIPERSnet pension liability. Expenditures under management services include information technology equipment upgrades, robust communication and engagement efforts, financial advisory services, and debt service contribution. Motorist assistance expend ituresof $9,364,500 decreased 6%dueto higher S4FEmatching transfersout forFSPservicesin FY2018/19. Planning and programming budgeted expendituresof $14,512,900 reflect a 29%decrease from the FY 2018/19 budget due to decreased projects and operations activities in connection with L1F disbursementsfor planning and programming, other agency projects, and special studies. Public and specialized transit budgeted expendituresof $193,728,700 are 8%lowerthan the FY2018/19 budget due to decreased operating expendituresfor public transit. the rail maintenance and operationsbudgeted expendituresof $46,228,500 are 12%higherthan the FY 2018/19 budget due to funding received forthe special event train platform in the city of Indio. Toll operations expenses are budgeted at $22,366,400 to manage the operations, maintenance, and capital support of the RCTC 91 ExpressLanesand pay interest on toll revenue bonds. the 11%decrease is due to decreased transfers out related to toll operations surplus revenues to fund the 91 corridor operationsproject. Chart 5 isan illustration of total usesincluded in the FY2019/20 budget by major categories. 40 Chart 5—Uses: Major Categories Rail Maintenance and Operations 5% Public and Specialized Tra n sit 18% Planning and Programming 1% M oto rist Assista n� 1% Toll Operations 2% Capital Highway, Rail, and Management rvices Regional Arterials 2% + 57% Debt rvice 7% Commuter Assistance 1% Capital Local Streetsand Roads 6% Commission Personnel The Commission's salaries and benefits total $19,396,500for FY2019/20.ibis represents an increase of $9,041,800 or87%over the FY2018/19 budget of $10,354,700 (Chart 6). The increase relatesprimarily to the one-time disbursement to fund the CaIPERS net pension liability of $8.1 million. The FY 2019/20 budget also includesthree additional full-time equivalents (RE) and a 4%pool for performance merit - based salary increases. The Commission'ssalary schedule for FY2019/20 isincluded in Appendix Eand complies with Government Code §20636 "Compensation Earnable" and California Code of Register §570.5, "Requirementsfora Publicly Available Pay Schedule." Chart 6—Salaries and Benefits Cost: Ave -Year Comparison $25, 000,000 $20,000,000 $15, 000,000 $10,000,000 $5, 000, 000 $- FY 15/16 FY 16/ 17 FY 17/ 18 FY 18/19 FY 19/ 20 The FTEof 54 positionsincluded in the FY2019/20 budget (Table 4) reflectsa 3.0 FTEincrease related to the recruitment of a financial analyst and a toll senior management analyst in preparation for the opening of the 15 Express Lanes and an accounting supervisor. The Commission accomplished significant organization changesoverthe past few yearsrelated to variousprojectsrequiring substantial attention at many staff levels. Management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission'senabling legislation requiring a lean organization. The Commission will continue providing 41 staff the tools needed to ensure an efficient and productive work environment. However, small should not be viewed in an absolute context; it is relative to the required tasksand the demandsto be met. Table 4-Full-Time Equivalents by Department FY 2018-2020 FY 17/ 18 FY 18/ 19 FY 19/ 20 Executive Management 0.6 0.6 Administration 5.7 5.6 Ext e rn a I Affairs 4.5 3.7 Finance 8.3 8.3 Planning and Programming 4.2 5.3 Rail Maintenance and Operations 3.6 4.2 Public and Specialized Transit 2.2 2.5 Commuter Assistance 1.4 1.6 Motorist Assistance 0.9 1.2 Capital Project Development and Delivery 13.0 15.5 Toll Operations 2.6 2.5 TOTAL 47.0 51.0 0.6 5.8 4.0 9.1 5.4 3.6 2.8 1.4 1.0 16.7 3.6 54.0 The Commission providesa comprehensive package of benefitsto employees. The package includes: health, dental, vision, life insurance, short and long-term disability, workers compensation, tuition assistance, sick and vacation leave, retirement benefits in the form of participation in the CaIPERS, postretirement health care, deferred compensation, and employee assistance program. Chart 7 illustratesthe compensation components. Chart 7- Personnel Salariesand Benefits Other Fringes 5% Health 7% Retirement 55% S3 la ries 33% In prior years, salaries represented more than half of personnel costs; however, in FY 2019/20, the Commission intendsto make a one-time disbursement of $8.1 million to fund the Commission'sCaIPERS net pension liability. Asa result, retirement costsin the FY2019/20 budget represent 55%of the personnel salariesand benefitsexpenditures. Department Initiatives Staff prepared each department'sbudget based on key acsamptions, accomplishmentsin FY2018/19, major initiatives for FY 2019/20, and department goals and related objectives. Tables 5 through 15 present the key initiativesand summary of expenditures/expensesforeach department. 42 Executive Management • Continue project development and delivery asthe key Measure A priority. • Fostergrowth in usage of express lanesand ensure theirfinancial success. • MonitorSR91 corridoroperationsand effectiveness. • Complete a long-range transportation plan to guide future transportation prioritiesfor the County. • Continue planning effortsto advance passenger rail service in the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Passcorridor. • Advocate forstate and federal investmentsin transportation to fund needed transportation priorities in the County and stimulate the local economy. • Maintain regional cooperation and collaboration as a significant effort consistent with the philosophy and mission of the Commission. • Support a comprehensive social media outreach program to build awareness of the Commission and itsrole in the community. • Maintain an effective mid -sized transportation agency with dedicated staff. Table 5-Executive Management FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change Personnel Pro fe ssio n a I alp port Tra n sfe rs O ut TOTAL $ 284,600 $ 122,300 65,500 21,600 $ 494,000 $ 253,000 $ 230,000 88,600 571,600 $ 252,700 $ 445,100 $ 192,100 76°% 150,000 235,000 5,000 2% 75,300 93,600 5,000 6% N/A 478,000 $ 773,700 $ 202,100 35°% Administration • Provide high quality support servicesto the Commission and to internal and external customers. • Maintain an accurate and efficient electronic recordsmanagement system. • Invest in an agenda management system to improve efficienciesand enhance transparency. • Provide timely communicationsand high quality support servicesto Commissioners. • Update technology to improve internal processcsand interaction with the public. • Support and develop a motivated workforce with a framework of activities and practices that comply with employment lawsand regulations. • Employ and recruit a dynamic and talented workforce. Table 6-Administration FY 17/18 Actual FY 18/19 Revised Budget FY 18/19 FY 19/20 Dollar Percent Projected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 677,000 $ Pro fe ssio n a I 571,500 alp p o rt 694,100 Capital Outlay 381,900 Debt Service 24,900 Tra n sfe rs O ut 153,500 TOTAL $ 2,502,900 $ 723,700 $ 686,700 847,800 758,700 1,015,800 850,400 511,300 508,000 3,098,600 $ 2,803,800 External Affairs $ 1,483,800 1,086,500 1,089,500 461,000 $ 4.120.800 $ 760,100 105°% 238,700 28% 73,700 7°% (50,300) -10% N/A N/A $ 1,022,200 33°% • Develop effective partnershipswith transportation providersto communicate a unified mes✓age to Congressregarding mobility needs. • Advocate positions in the State Legislature and in Congress that advance the County's transportation interests. • Continue a leadership role in formulating a countywide direction on federal transportation policies. • Prepare federal transportation funding reauthorization principles in preparation for congressional and administrative deliberationson the next surface transportation law. • Conduct a concerted outreach effort to new federal and state representatives on local transportation issues. • Utilize modern technology to support a robust public communication and engagement effort focusing on accessible and transparent communication of the Commission'sprojects. 43 " D e v e l o p m a r k e t i n g a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n p l a n s f o r t h e R C T C 9 1 E x p r e s s L a n e s a n d t h e 1 - 1 5 E x p r e s s L a n e s p r o j e c t . " C o n t i n u e t h e p u b l i c o u t r e a c h p r o g r a m , " O p e r a t i o n L i f e s a v e r " , t a r g e t i n g s c h o o l s i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o r a i l r o a d t r a c k s o n r a i l s a f e t y e d u c a t i o n , e n g i n e e r i n g , a n d e n f o r c e m e n t . T a b l e 7 E x t e m a I A f f a i r s F Y 1 7 / 1 8 F Y 1 8 / 1 9 F Y 1 8 / 1 9 F Y 1 9 / 2 0 D o l l a r P e r c e n t A c t u a l R e v i s e d B u d g e t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l P r o f e s s i o n a I a l p p o r t T r a n s r e r s O u t T O T A L $ 8 5 5 , 1 0 0 $ 1 , 0 8 3 , 5 0 0 1 0 1 , 7 0 0 1 2 4 , 7 0 0 $ 2 , 1 6 5 , 0 0 0 $ 8 4 9 , 1 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 3 , 4 0 0 4 1 2 , 4 0 0 2 , 2 6 4 , 9 0 0 $ 8 4 8 , 9 0 0 $ 1 , 5 4 2 , 0 0 0 $ 6 9 2 , 9 0 0 8 2 % 1 , 0 0 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 1 1 1 , 0 0 0 1 0 7 , 6 0 0 1 1 % 3 2 3 , 5 0 0 6 1 2 , 9 0 0 2 0 0 , 5 0 0 4 9 % N / A 2 , 1 7 3 , 8 0 0 $ 3 , 2 6 5 , 9 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 4 4 % R n a n c e " C o n t i n u e a p p r o p r i a t e u s e s o f l o n g - a n d s h o r t - t e r m f i n a n c i n g t o a d v a n c e t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s 2 0 0 9 M e a s u r e A p r o j e c t s . " P r o v i d e s u p p o r t t o t h e 9 1 E x p r e s s L a n e s t o l l o p e r a t i o n s c o n t r a c t o r b a c k o f f i c e s t o e n s u r e t h e p r o p e r a c c o u n t i n g o f t o l l r e v e n u e s a n d o p e r a t i o n s a n d m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s . " K e e p a b r e a s t o f G o v e r n m e n t a l A c c o u n t i n g S t a n d a r d s B o a r d ( G A S B ) t e c h n i c a l a c t i v i t i e s a f f e c t i n g t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s a c c o u n t i n g a n d f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t i n g a c t i v i t i e s a n d i m p l e m e n t n e w p r o n o u n c e m e n t s . " U p g r a d e t h e E n t e r p r i s e R e s o u r c e P l a n n i n g ( E R P ) s y s t e m t o b e n e f i t a l l s t a f f i n t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f a c c o u n t i n g a n d p r o j e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a n d a u t o m a t i o n o f a p a p e r i e s s w o r k f l o w s y s t e m . " M a n a g e a c e n t r a l i z e d p r o c u r e m e n t s p r o c e s s i n o r d e r t o s t r e n g t h e n c o n t r o l s a n d e n s u r e c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f p r o c u r e m e n t p o l i c i e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s a n d a d h e r e n c e t o a p p l i c a b l e l a w s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s . " S u p p o r t o u t r e a c h a c t i v i t i e s t o e n c o u r a g e d i s a d v a n t a g e d b u s i n e s s e n t e r p r i s e ( D B E ) a n d s m a l l b u s i n e s s e n t e r p r i s e ( S B E ) p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n v a r i o u s c o n t r a c t s . T a b l e 8 F i n a n c e F Y 1 7 / 1 8 A c t u a l F Y 1 8 / 1 9 R e v i s e d B u d g e t F Y 1 8 / 1 9 F Y 1 9 / 2 0 D o l l a r P e r c e n t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l $ 1 , 1 4 6 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 8 2 , 3 0 0 $ 1 , 1 3 8 , 6 0 0 $ 2 , 5 1 1 , 3 0 0 $ 1 , 3 2 9 , 0 0 0 1 1 2 % P r o f e s s i o n a l 1 , 5 1 8 , 1 0 0 2 , 2 3 5 , 8 0 0 1 , 4 0 5 , 3 0 0 2 , 2 0 0 , 1 0 0 ( 3 5 , 7 0 0 ) - 2 % a l p p o r t 3 6 9 , 6 0 0 5 4 3 , 5 0 0 4 3 1 , 4 0 0 6 0 8 , 8 0 0 6 5 , 3 0 0 1 2 % C a p i t a l O u t l a y - 5 1 3 , 7 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 8 4 5 , 0 0 0 3 3 1 , 3 0 0 6 4 % T r a n s r e r s O u t 1 4 , 0 1 3 , 8 0 0 1 3 , 1 8 3 , 4 0 0 1 1 , 2 5 3 , 4 0 0 1 0 , 0 8 7 , 9 0 0 ( 3 , 0 9 5 , 5 0 0 ) - 2 3 % T O T A L $ 1 7 , 0 4 7 , 5 0 0 $ 1 7 , 6 5 8 , 7 0 0 $ 1 4 , 3 2 8 , 7 0 0 $ 1 6 , 2 5 3 , 1 0 0 $ ( 1 , 4 0 5 , 6 0 0 ) - 8 % P l a n n i n g a n d P r o g r a m m i n g " M o n i t o r f u n d i n g a u t h o r i t y a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e l a t e d t o t h e S t a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o r a m ( S T I P ) . " E n s u r e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f S T I P / R e g i o n a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( R I P ) , A c t i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o g r a m ( A T P ) , a n d o t h e r f u n d e d p r o j e c t s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h C a l i f o r n i a T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n ( C T C ) , C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( C a l t r a n s ) , a n d S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a A s s o c i a t i o n o f G o v e r n m e n t s ( A G ) p o l i c i e s . " C o n t i n u e t o s t r a t e g i c a l l y p r o g r a m p r o j e c t s f o r a l l l o c a l a g e n c i e s c o u n t y w i d e i n t o t h e F e d e r a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( R I P ) a n d o b l i g a t e f u n d s i n a n e x p e d i t i o u s m a n n e r f o r t h e m a x i m u m u s e o f a l l a v a i l a b l e f u n d i n g , i n c l u d i n g m o n i t o r i n g t h e u s e o f s u c h f u n d i n g t o p r e v e n t f r o m l a p s i n g . " M o n i t o r a l l p r o j e c t s p r o g r a m m e d t o r e c e i v e 2 0 0 9 M e a s u r e A , T U M F , s t a t e , a n d f e d e r a l f u n d s t o e n s u r e t i m e l y d e l i v e r y a n d p r e v e n t f u n d s f r o m l a p s i n g . " F o c u s o n i n t e r r e g i o n a l c o n c e m s a n d m a i n t a i n e f f e c t i v e w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n v o l v i n g v a r i o u s m u l t i - c o u n t y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s s u e s , i n c l u d i n g g o o d s m o v e m e n t . 4 4 " C o o r d i n a t e p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s w i t h r e g i o n a l a n d l o c a l a g e n c i e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n / S u s t a i n a b l e C o m m u n i t i e s S t r a t e g y ( R l P / S C S ) a n d g r e e n h o u s e g a s r e d u c t i o n ( G H G ) i m p l e m e n t a t i o n g u i d e l i n e s . " P a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e C T C a n d C a l t r a n s ' s f o r u m s i n p r e p a r a t i o n a n d e v a l u a t i o n o f A l P p r o j e c t s f o r t h e s t a t e w i d e a n d M P O f u n d i n g p r o g r a m s t o r e p r e s e n t t h e C o u n t y ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t i n p r o g r a m f u n d i n g . " A d m i n i s t e r t h e B i c y c l e a n d P e d e s t r i a n F a c i l i t i e s P r o g r a m ( S 3 8 2 1 ) . " C o n t i n u e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a c o u n t y w i d e i n t e g r a t e d l o n g - r a n g e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h l o c a l , r e g i o n a l , a n d s t a t e p l a n n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . T a b l e 9 P l a n n i n g a n d P r o g r a m m i n g F Y 1 7 / 1 8 A c t u a l F Y 1 8 / 1 9 R e v i s e d B u d g e t F Y 1 8 / 1 9 F Y 1 9 / 2 0 D o l l a r P e r c e n t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l $ 1 , 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 3 7 , 4 0 0 $ 8 8 7 , 9 0 0 $ 2 , 1 8 6 , 8 0 0 $ 1 , 1 4 9 , 4 0 0 1 1 1 % P r o f e s s i o n a l 9 5 , 9 0 0 3 4 3 , 9 0 0 1 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 9 4 , 0 0 0 ( 4 9 , 9 0 0 ) - 1 5 % a i p p o r t 2 2 , 1 0 0 1 9 , 5 0 0 1 6 , 8 0 0 2 1 , 6 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 1 1 % P r o j e c t s a n d O p e r a t i o n s 2 , 7 7 9 , 0 0 0 1 8 , 0 4 6 , 5 0 0 3 , 9 9 1 , 0 0 0 8 , 7 8 7 , 1 0 0 ( 9 , 2 5 9 , 4 0 0 ) - 5 1 % T r a n s f e r s O u t 3 8 8 , 8 0 0 1 , 0 1 7 , 4 0 0 1 , 0 2 7 , 4 0 0 3 , 2 2 3 , 4 0 0 2 , 2 0 6 , 0 0 0 2 1 7 % T O T A L $ 4 , 2 9 3 , 8 0 0 $ 2 0 , 4 6 4 , 7 0 0 $ 6 , 0 4 5 , 3 0 0 $ 1 4 , 5 1 2 , 9 0 0 $ ( 5 , 9 5 1 , 8 0 0 ) - 2 9 % R a i l M a i n t e n a n c e a n d O p e r a t i o n s " A s a m e m b e r o f t h e R R A , c o n t i n u e a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e g o v e r n a n c e a n d o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e M e t r o l i n k c o m m u t e r r a i l s y s t e m . " C o n t i n u e t h e p l a n n i n g a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f c a p i t a l i m p r o v e m e n t s a t t h e c o m m u t e r r a i l s t a t i o n s i n t h e C o u n t y , i n c l u d i n g s e c u r i t y a n d r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o j e c t s a n d p a r k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . " C o n t i n u e t o s u p p o r t a n d e v a l u a t e a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e ( P V L ) s e r v i c e , s u c h a s p r o m o t i n g r i d e r s h i p . " E s t a b l i s h t h e b e s t a p p r o a c h t o b u i l d , m a i n t a i n , a n d o p e r a t e c o s t e f f e c t i v e a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s u s t a i n a b l e f a c i l i t i e s t h a t m e e t t h e p u b l i c ' s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n n e e d s . " L e a d t h e s e r v i c e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o c e s s a n d a c t i v e l y c o o r d i n a t e w i t h a l l s t a k e h o l d e r s a l o n g t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y - S a n G o r g o n i o P a s s c o r r i d o r f o r i n t e r c i t y p a s c P n g e r r a i l s e r v i c e . " A d v a n c e t h e n e x t g e n e r a t i o n r a i l f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y t o e v a l u a t e f u t u r e g r o w t h o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p a s s c n g e r r a i l i n t h e C o u n t y . " C o n s t r u c t t h e s p e c i a l t r a i n s p l a t f o r m i n t h e c i t y o f I n d i o t o s e r v e t h e m u s i c f e s t i v a l e v e n t s a n d r e d u c e c o n g e s t i o n . T a b l e 1 0 R a i l M a i n t e n a n c e a n d O p e r a t i o n s F Y 1 7 / 1 8 A c t u a l F Y 1 8 / 1 9 R e v i s e d B u d g e t F Y 1 8 / 1 9 F Y 1 9 / 2 0 D o l l a r P e r c e n t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l $ 5 8 6 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 0 , 9 0 0 $ 6 2 8 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 1 8 4 , 0 0 0 $ 3 6 3 , 1 0 0 4 4 % P r o f e s s i o n a l 1 , 4 2 6 , 3 0 0 3 , 2 2 4 , 0 0 0 1 , 9 7 9 , 8 0 0 1 0 , 3 3 2 , 7 0 0 7 , 1 0 8 , 7 0 0 2 2 0 % a l p p o r t 2 , 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 , 3 4 6 , 8 0 0 2 , 3 9 9 , 5 0 0 3 , 3 0 5 , 2 0 0 ( 4 1 , 6 0 0 ) - 1 % P r o j e c t s a n d O p e r a t i o n s 1 9 , 2 7 1 , 1 0 0 3 2 , 7 5 5 , 6 0 0 2 8 , 4 3 4 , 0 0 0 3 0 , 2 4 6 , 6 0 0 ( 2 , 5 0 9 , 0 0 0 ) - 8 � % C a p i t a I O u t l a y 4 7 , 8 0 0 8 9 , 6 0 0 8 8 , 7 0 0 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 9 0 , 4 0 0 1 0 1 � % T r a n s f e r s O u t 5 8 0 , 5 0 0 8 8 2 , 9 0 0 8 8 2 , 9 0 0 9 8 0 , 0 0 0 9 7 , 1 0 0 1 1 � % T O T A L $ 2 4 , 1 6 1 , 7 0 0 $ 4 1 , 1 1 9 , 8 0 0 $ 3 4 , 4 1 3 , 4 0 0 $ 4 6 , 2 2 8 , 5 0 0 $ 5 , 1 0 8 , 7 0 0 1 2 � % P u b l i c a n d S p e c i a l i z e d T r a n s i t " C o o r d i n a t e t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a l l p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s w i t h i n t h e C o u n t y b y p r o m o t i n g p r o g r a m e f f i c i e n c y b e t w e e n t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s . " C o n t i n u e p u b l i c t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r o v e r s i g h t a n d f i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o e n s u r e c o m p l e t i o n o f a n n u a l f i s c a l a u d i t s a n d s t a t e t r i e n n i a l p e r f o r m a n c e a u d i t s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h T D A r e g u l a t i o n s . " S u p p o r t i n n o v a t i v e p r o g r a m s t h a t p r o v i d e t r a n s i t a s s i s t a n c e i n h a r d t o s e r v e r u r a l a r e a s o r f o r r i d e r s h a v i n g v e r y s p e c i a l t r a n s i t n e e d s a n d m o n i t o r f u n d i n g o f t h e s e p r o g r a m s . " C o n t i n u e l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s t o e n s u r e t h a t a n t i c i p a t e d r e v e n u e s a r e i n l i n e w i t h p r o j e c t e d l e v e l s o f s e r v i c e b y t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s . " D e v e l o p a T D A m a n u a l f o r t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s r e c e i v i n g a l l o c a t i o n s f r o m t h e C o m m i s s i o n . 4 5 Table 11 -Public and Specialized Transit FY 17/18 Actual FY 18/19 Revised Budget FY 18/19 FY 19/20 Dollar Percent Proiected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 391,700 $ 450,200 $ 462,000 $ 895,100 $ 444,900 99% Professional 107,600 314,000 252,900 299,700 (14,300) -5°% Sap p o rt 50,300 63,900 64,000 69,200 5,300 8 % Projectsand Operations 90,683,100 180,911,000 124,584,600 162,004,400 (18,906,600) -10°% TransfersOut 22,224,000 28,602,300 27,305,700 30,460,300 1,858,000 6% TOTAL $ 113,456,700 $ 210,341,400 $ 152,669,200 $ 193,728,700 $ (16,612,700) -8°% Commuter Assistance • Improve the suite of services and outreach to rideshare participants and employer partners, including personalized information and electronic accessand distribution. • Transition from a locally provided Inland Empire -based rideshare and vanpool system to a regional platform. • Maintain and grow employer partnershipsthrough value-added services and toolsfor ridesharing programs. • Maintain the long-term partnership with San Bemardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to manage and implement a "sister" commuterassistance program forresidentsand employersin San Bernardino County. • Optimize park and ride facilitiesto support car/vanpool/buspoolarrangementsand facilitate transit connections. • Operate a cost-effective program within the County that results in reduction of single occupant vehicles. Table 12-CommuterAssistance FY 17/18 Actual FY 18/19 Revised Budget FY 18/19 FY 19/20 Dollar Percent Projected Budget Change Change Pe rso n n e I $ 258,300 $ 290,000 $ 289,900 $ 436,500 $ 146,500 51 % Professional 492,500 466,400 387,600 542,700 76,300 16% Sap p o rt 178,700 362,800 88,900 285,800 (77, 000) -21 % Projects and Operations 2,498,000 3,383,900 2,610,200 3,313,300 (70,600) -2°% Transfers Out 1,020,200 1,696,500 1,331,700 302,500 (1,394,000) -82% TOTAL $ 4,447,700 $ 6,199,600 $ 4,708,300 $ 4,880,800 $ (1,318,800) -21% Motorist Assistance • Fulfill the callbox upgrade and removal program as identified in the approved 2019 Callbox Optimization Plan. • Maintain a high benefit -to -cost ratio related to the performance of the FP program and expand service if funding opportunitiesarise. • Transition from a locally provided 1E511 system to a regional southern California 511 solution. • Continue the call box system program to serve asa "safe net" forstranded motoristsin the County. Table 13-Motorist Assistance FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 Dollar Percent Actual Revised Budget Proiected Budget Change Change Personnel $ 123,700 $ 198,200 $ 172,000 Professional 352,300 528,200 276,100 Sapport 291,000 295,900 160,600 Projects and Operations 2,848,900 5,161,800 3,517,100 TransfersOut 1,293,400 3,820,500 3,820,500 TOTAL $ 4,909,300 $ 10,004,600 $ 7,946,300 Capital Project Development and Delivery $ 280,900 522,000 416,400 5,397,000 2,748,200 $ 9.364.500 $ 82,700 42% (6,200) -1°% 120,500 41 % 235,200 5°% (1,072,300) -28 % $ (640,100) -6°% • Continue project work on the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan projects, including the 1-15 Express Lanes, SR60 truck lanes, Mid County Parkway, and Pachappa underpassprojects. • Provide 2009 Measure A funding to the incorporated cities and the County for local streets and roads maintenance, repair, and construction and to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)for highwaysand regional arterials. 46 " P r o v i d e T U M F r e g i o n a l a r t e r i a l f u n d i n g a n d s u p p o r t t o l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s f o r r e g i o n a l a r t e r i a l p r o j e c t e n g i n e e r i n g , r i g h t o f w a y a c q u i s i t i o n , a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n . " M a i n t a i n a r i g h t o f w a y a c q u i s i t i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m i n s u p p o r t o f c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s a n d i n t h e m o s t c o s t e f f e c t i v e m a n n e r w i t h i n p r o j e c t s c h e d u l e s , w h i l e a d h e r i n g t o f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s . " M a i n t a i n a n d m a n a g e t h e a c c e s s , u s e , s a f e t y , a n d s e c u r i t y o f C o m m i s s i o n - o w n e d p r o p e r t i e s i n c l u d i n g c o m m u t e r r a i l s t a t i o n s , p r o p e r t i e s i n a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s , a n d i n c o m e - g e n e r a t i n g p r o p e r t i e s . " D e v e l o p s t r a t e g i e s t o i m p l e m e n t a l t e r n a t i v e f i n a n c i n g s t r u c t u r e s i n c l u d i n g p u b l i c e x p r e s s l a n e s . T a b l e 1 4 C a p i t a l P r o j e c t D e v e l o p m e n t a n d D e l i v e r y F Y 1 7 / 1 8 A c t u a l F Y 1 8 / 1 9 R e v i s e d B u d g e t F Y 1 8 / 1 9 F Y 1 9 / 2 0 D o l l a r P e r c e n t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l $ 3 , 0 0 5 , 3 0 0 $ 3 , 9 1 1 , 9 0 0 $ 3 , 9 1 1 , 8 0 0 $ 7 , 0 7 7 , 6 0 0 $ 3 , 1 6 5 , 7 0 0 8 1 � % P r o f e s s i o n a l 7 , 6 6 4 , 4 0 0 8 , 9 0 7 , 2 0 0 5 , 2 1 8 , 6 0 0 6 , 8 3 3 , 6 0 0 ( 2 , 0 7 3 , 6 0 0 ) - 2 3 % a l p p o r t 4 2 9 , 8 0 0 1 , 1 8 5 , 1 0 0 1 , 0 1 6 , 0 0 0 1 , 3 3 6 , 9 0 0 1 5 1 , 8 0 0 1 3 % P r o j e c t s a n d O p e r a t i o n s 2 7 4 , 2 4 6 , 4 0 0 5 4 2 , 1 4 5 , 7 0 0 3 6 3 , 4 5 7 , 7 0 0 5 3 2 , 6 3 6 , 7 0 0 ( 9 , 5 0 9 , 0 0 0 ) - 2 % C a p i t a l O u t l a y 2 , 1 7 7 , 2 0 0 7 , 2 2 4 , 8 0 0 6 , 3 3 6 , 7 0 0 3 , 0 5 2 , 0 0 0 ( 4 , 1 7 2 , 8 0 0 ) - 5 8 % D e b t r v i c e 6 5 6 , 8 6 8 , 9 0 0 6 9 , 5 5 5 , 7 0 0 6 5 , 0 8 5 , 7 0 0 6 9 , 5 3 4 , 5 0 0 ( 2 1 , 2 0 0 ) 0 % T r a n s f e r s O u t 2 8 2 , 6 9 3 , 7 0 0 1 2 6 , 7 0 4 , 1 0 0 1 0 8 , 6 3 6 , 8 0 0 1 1 4 , 3 4 6 , 1 0 0 ( 1 2 , 3 5 8 , 0 0 0 ) - 1 0 % T O T A L $ 1 , 2 2 7 , 0 8 5 , 7 0 0 $ 7 5 9 , 6 3 4 , 5 0 0 $ 5 5 3 , 6 6 3 , 3 0 0 $ 7 3 4 , 8 1 7 , 4 0 0 $ ( 2 4 , 8 1 7 , 1 0 0 ) - 3 % T o l l O p e r a t i o n s " M a n a g e t h e o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e R C T C 9 1 E x p r e s s L a n e s a d h e r i n g t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s 9 1 E x p r e s s L a n e s T o l l P o l i c y . " M a n a g e t o l l o p e r a t i o n s u s i n g i n v e s t m e n t g r a d e t r a f f i c a n d r e v e n u e s t u d i e s a n d c o s t e s t i m a t e a s s u m p t i o n s s p e c i f i c t o e a c h e x p r e s s l a n e f a c i l i t y . " C o n t i n u e 1 5 E x p r e s s L a n e s t o l l p l a n n i n g t h r o u g h d e v e l o p m e n t o f b u s i n e s s r u l e s a n d a g e n c y a g r e e m e n t s . " P r o v i d e t i m e l y a n d e f f e c t i v e r e p o r t i n g o f t o l l o p e r a t i o n m e t r i c s i n c l u d i n g r e v e n u e , t r a n s a c t i o n s , c a r p o o l u s a g e , a n d p e r f o r m a n c e i n d i c a t o r s . " P a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e C a l i f o r n i a T o l l O p e r a t o r s C o m m i t t e e t o a d v a n c e r e g i o n a l a n d s t a t e w i d e t o l l i n g i n i t i a t i v e s , t e c h n o l o g y , i n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y , a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n a m o n g C a l i f o r n i a t o l l a g e n c i e s . T a b l e 1 5 T o l l O p e r a t i o n s F Y 1 7 / 1 8 F Y 1 8 / 1 9 F Y 1 8 / 1 9 F Y 1 9 / 2 0 D o l l a r P e r c e n t A c t u a l R e v i s e d B u d g e t P r o j e c t e d B u d g e t C h a n g e C h a n g e P e r s o n n e l $ 5 1 0 , 3 0 0 $ 6 3 8 , 0 0 0 $ 6 3 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 5 3 , 4 0 0 $ 7 1 5 , 4 0 0 1 1 2 % P r o f e s s i o n a l 8 1 5 , 4 0 0 2 , 3 5 1 , 0 0 0 2 , 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 , 9 9 0 , 0 0 0 ( 3 6 1 , 0 0 0 ) - 1 5 % 9 a p p o r t a n d M a i n t e n a n c e 2 , 7 9 3 , 4 0 0 4 , 5 7 6 , 7 0 0 3 , 9 3 6 , 8 0 0 4 , 5 4 3 , 3 0 0 ( 3 3 , 4 0 0 ) - 1 % P r o j e c t s a n d O p e r a t i o n s 6 , 6 6 1 , 4 0 0 8 , 7 8 6 , 1 0 0 8 , 5 0 7 , 9 0 0 1 0 , 6 7 0 , 2 0 0 1 , 8 8 4 , 1 0 0 2 1 % C a p i t a l O u t l a y 3 1 9 , 6 0 0 2 , 4 9 7 , 6 0 0 2 , 3 1 4 , 1 0 0 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( 1 , 7 4 7 , 6 0 0 ) - 7 0 % D e b t S e r v i c e 7 , 1 1 9 , 9 0 0 2 7 , 1 1 9 , 9 0 0 2 7 , 1 1 9 , 9 0 0 7 , 1 1 9 , 9 0 0 ( 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) - 7 4 % T r a n s f e r s O u t 7 4 9 , 6 0 0 6 , 3 0 7 , 2 0 0 3 , 9 4 8 , 2 0 0 3 , 0 5 9 , 5 0 0 ( 3 , 2 4 7 , 7 0 0 ) - 5 1 � % T O T A L $ 1 8 , 9 6 9 , 6 0 0 $ 5 2 , 2 7 6 , 5 0 0 $ 4 8 , 8 1 4 , 9 0 0 $ 2 9 , 4 8 6 , 3 0 0 $ ( 2 2 , 7 9 0 , 2 0 0 ) - 4 4 � % F u n d B a l a n c e s T h e p r o j e c t e d t o t a l f u n d b a l a n c e a s o f J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 9 i s $ 7 9 2 , 3 1 0 , 1 0 0 . T h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s e x p e c t s t h e F Y 2 0 1 9 / 2 0 b u d g e t e d a c t i v i t i e s t o r e s u l t i n a $ 1 4 2 , 8 1 8 , 6 0 0 d e c r e a s e o f t o t a l f u n d b a l a n c e a t J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 0 t o $ 6 4 9 , 4 9 1 , 5 0 0 . T h e p r i m a r y c a u s e o f t h e d e c r e a s e i s p r o j e c t a c t i v i t i e s i n F Y 2 0 1 9 / 2 0 r e l a t e d t o t h e 1 - 1 5 E x p r e s s L a n e s p r o j e c t , c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e 9 1 P r o j e c t , M i d C o u n t y P a r k w a y p r o j e c t , r a i l s t a t i o n m a i n t e n a n c e , T U M F r e g i o n a l a r t e r i a l p r o j e c t s , a n d p u b l i c t r a n s i t a l l o c a t i o n s . T a b l e 1 6 p r e s e n t s t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e p r o j e c t e d f u n d b a l a n c e b y p r o g r a m a t J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 0 . 4 7 Table 16-Projected Fund Balances by Fund Type and Program at June 30, 2020 Measure A Sales Tax Westem County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Other Total Restricted: Bond Financing $ 11,438,300 $ - $ - $ Commuter Assistance 15,043,200 - - - Debt Service - - - 17,771,200 Economic Development 12,733,500 - - - Highways 35,879,600 38,250,400 - 69,954,800 Local3reetsand Roads 1,000 1,300 600 - New Corridors 28,994,600 - - - Planning and Programming - - - 442,700 Public and S3ecialized Transit 8,172,700 1,681,700 - 141,693,400 Rail 25,561,000 - - 19,877,500 C ETA P - - - 45, 368, 500 Regional Arterials 42,946,100 - - 42,924,700 Motorist Assistance - - 8,958,000 TollOperations - - 77,626,800 Assigned: Management Services TOTAL Fund Balance $ 180,770,000 $ 4,169,900 39,933,400 $ 600 $ 428,787,500 $ 11,438,300 15, 043, 200 17, 771, 200 12, 733, 500 144, 084, 800 2,900 28, 994, 600 442,700 151,547,800 45,438,500 45, 368, 500 85, 870, 800 8,958,000 77, 626, 800 4,169, 900 $ 649,491,500 Chart 8 illustrates the actual and projected trends in fund balances for each governmental and enterprise fund type from FY2016/17 through FY2019/20. Chart 8 -Projected Fund Balance Trends by Fund Type FY2017-2020 $601,000,000 $501,000,000 $401,000,000 $301,000,000 $201,000,000 $101,000,000 $1,000,000 General Fund Budget Summary Special Revenue Funds Capital Projects Funds Debt Service Fund Enterprise Fund iiIFY 16/17 IlIFY 17/ 18 UFY 18/19 o FY 19/ 20 The overall budget for FY 2019/20 is presented in Table 17 by summarized line items, Table 18 by operating and capital classifications, and Table 19 by fund type. Highway, rail, and regional arterial program expendituresby project are summarized in Table 20. 48 Table 17 — Budget Comparative by Summarized Line Item FY 2018-2020 FY 17/ 18 Actual FY 18/ 19 FY 18/ 19 Revised Budget Projected FY 19/ 20 Budget Dollar Change Percent Change Revenues Measure A Sales Tax LlFSalesTax SfA SalesTax Federal Reimbursements Sate Reimbursements Local Reimbursements 1UMFRevenue Tolls, Penalties, and Fees Other Revenue Investment Income TOTAL Revenues Expenditures/Expenses Personnel Sa la ries a nd Benefits Professional and Sap port Professio na I S ry ices Sapport Costs TOTAL Professional and Sapport Costs Projectsand Operations Program Operations Engineering Construction Design Build Right of Way/Land Operating and Capital Disbursements Special Sudies Local Streets and Roads Regiona I Arteria Is TOTAL Projectsand Operations Debt Service Principal Payments Interest Payments Cost of Issuance TOTAL Debt Service Capital Outlay TOTAL Expend itures/Expenses Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over (under) Expenditures/Expenses Other Rnancing Sources(Uses) Transfers In Tra nsfe rs Out Debt Proceeds TIRA Loan Proceeds Payment to Escrow Agent Bond Premium Net Rnancing Saurces(Uses) Excess(deficiency)of Revenues over (under) Expenditures/Expensesand Other Rnancing Saurces(Uses) $ 176,301,700 $ 192,000,000 $ 89,557,600 96,000,000 21,320,900 23,203,600 71,468,000 59,105,700 11,952,100 166,590,100 4,786,900 23,492,500 23,699,800 25,922,200 50,446,800 36,940,500 3,199,500 1,084,400 9,117,000 3,408,000 192,000,000 96,000,000 27,110,700 74,419,800 80,409,200 5,720,900 26,672,200 47,756,900 468,500 10,064,800 461,850,300 627,747,000 560,623,000 8,846,000 10,354,700 9,917,000 14,249,800 20,451,700 13,902,600 7,246,200 11,911,000 9,363,200 21,496,000 24,298,500 8,155,100 21,408,500 123,999,200 39,048,100 111,707,000 1,458,300 53,176,800 15,736,400 398,987,900 62,141,000 57,726,800 2,256,100 122,123,900 2,926,500 32,362,700 23,265,800 27,893,500 36,537,600 131,796,700 183,818,300 95,615,000 224,661,000 1,842,000 58,479,500 30,547,000 23,575,800 13,617,300 73,057,200 146,305,000 35,950,600 157,582,100 1,535,000 58,479,500 25,000,000 791,190,600 535,102,500 25,965,000 50,710,600 21,495,000 50,710,600 76,675,600 72,205,600 10,837,000 9,347,500 554,380,300 921,420,600 649,838,400 (92,530,000) (293,673,600) (89,215,400) 323, 263, 800 182, 214, 300 158, 206, 600 (323,263,800) (182,214,300) (158,206,600) 615,775,000 106,081,000 61,841,100 (541,889,800) (20,000,000) (20,000,000) 119,713,800 193,599,000 86,081,000 41,841,100 101,069,000 (207,592,600) (47,374,300) Beginning Fund Balance 738,615,400 839,684,400 839,684,400 ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 839,684,400 $ 632,091,800 $ 792,310,100 $ 193,000,000 97,000,000 31,050,600 88,718,700 173,799,200 9,957,900 25,000,000 41,869,400 553,000 12,754,300 673,703,100 19,396,500 25,447,300 12,383,200 37,830,500 30,447,100 22,436,000 155,418,000 141,583,000 108,498,500 204,759,400 1,271,000 58,642,300 30,000,000 753,055,300 27,245,000 49,409,400 76,654,400 5,288,000 892,224,700 (218,521,600) 165,207,900 (165,207,900) 75,703,000 75,703,000 (142, 818, 600) 792,310,100 $ 649,491,500 $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 7,847,000 29,613,000 7,209,100 (13,534,600) (922,200) 4,928,900 (531,400) 9,346,300 45,956,100 9,041,800 4,995,600 472,200 5,467,800 2,553,600 (14,101,600) 23,621,300 (42,235,300) 12,883,500 (19,901,600) (571,000) 162,800 (547,000) (38,135,300) 1,280,000 (1,301,200) (21,200) (5,549,000) (29,195,900) 1% 1% 34% 50% 4% -58% -4% 13% -49% 274% 7% 87% 24% 4% 17% 9% -39% 18% -23% 13% -9% -31 % 0% -2% -5% 5% -3% N/A 0% -51 % -3% 75,152,000 (17,006,400) 17,006,400 (30,378,000) 20,000,000 (10,378,000) -26% -9% -9% N/A -29% -100% N/A -12% 64,774,000 -31 % (47,374,300) -6% $ 17,399,700 3% 49 Table 18 - Operating and Capital Budget FY 2019/20 FY 19/ 20 FY 19/ 20 FY 19/ 20 Operating Budget Capital Budget TOTAL Budget Revenues Measure A SalesTax LTFSaIesTax STA SaIesTax Federal Reimbursements Sate Reimbursements Local Reimbursements TUM FRevenue Tolls, Penalties, and Fees Other Revenue Investment Income TOTAL Revenues Expend itures/Expenses Personnel &lariesand Benefits Professional and Support Pro fe ssio n a l Se ry is e s Support Costs TOTAL Professional and Support Costs Projects and Operations Program Operations Engineering Construction Design Build Rght of Way and Land Operating and Capital Disbursements Special audies Local areets and Roads Regional Arterials TOTAL Projects and Operations Debt Service Principal Payments Interest Payments TOTAL Debt Service Capital Outlay TOTAL Expend itures/Expenses Excess(deficiency)of Revenues over (under) Expend itures/Expenses Other Financing Sources (Uses) Tra n sfe rs In Tra nsfe rs Out 11F1A Loan Proceeds Net Financing Sources (Uses) Excess(deficiency)of Revenues over (under) Expend itures/Expensesand Other Rnancing Sources (Uses) Beginning Fund Balance ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 26, 650, 000 $ 166, 350, 000 97,000,000 31,050,600 9,480,000 79,238,700 13, 890, 500 159, 908, 700 2,490,000 7,467,900 - 25,000,000 - 41,869,400 - 553,000 4,165,500 8,588,800 184, 726, 600 488, 976, 500 10,764,000 16,592,700 6,501,900 8,632,500 8,854,600 5,881,300 23,094,600 11,688,900 1,470,000 188, 909,400 1,271,000 14, 735, 900 18, 758, 200 22,436,000 153, 948, 000 141,583,000 108,498, 500 15, 850, 000 58,642,300 30, 000, 000 203, 339, 300 549, 716, 000 27, 245, 000 49,409,400 1,486,000 76,654,400 3,802,000 238, 683, 900 653, 540, 800 (53,957,300) (164,564,300) 43,258,800 121,949,100 (47, 077,100) (118,130, 800) - 75, 703, 000 (3,818,300) 79,521,300 (57,775,600) (85,043,000) 263, 681, 000 528, 629,100 $ 205, 905,400 $ 443, 586,100 $ 193,000,000 97, 000, 000 31,050,600 88, 718, 700 173, 799, 200 9,957,900 25, 000, 000 41,869,400 553,000 12, 754, 300 673, 703,100 19, 396, 500 25,447,300 12, 383, 200 37, 830, 500 30,447,100 22,436,000 155,418, 000 141,583,000 108,498, 500 204,759,400 1,271,000 58,642,300 30, 000, 000 753, 055, 300 27, 245, 000 49,409,400 76,654,400 5,288,000 892, 224, 700 (218,521,600) 165, 207, 900 (165,207,900) 75, 703, 000 75, 703, 000 (142,818,600) 792, 310,100 $ 649,491,500 Table 19 — Budget by Fund Type FY 2019/20 FY 19/ 20 General Fund oecial Revenue Capital Projects Debt Service Enterprise TOTAL Budget Revenues Measure A Sales Tax $ - $ 193,000,000 $ - $ - $ LTFSalesTax - 97,000,000 STA SalesTax - 31,050,600 Federal Reimbursements 8,000,000 77,915,500 2,803,200 Sate Reimbursements 3,068,000 170,731,200 - Local Reimbursements 400 9,957,500 - TUMFRevenue - 25,000,000 - Tolls, Pena Ries, and Fees - 41,869,400 Other Revenue - 553,000 Investment Income 490,500 9,021,500 1,371,700 348,500 1,522,100 TOTAL Revenues 11,558,900 614,229,300 1,371,700 3,151,700 43,391,500 Expend itures/Expenses Personnel Se lariesand Benefits 9,324,600 8,718,500 1,353,400 Professional and Support Profe ssio na I Se ry ices 5,013,600 18,443,700 1,990,000 aapport Costs 2,877,000 4,962,900 4,543,300 TOTAL Professional and 9apport Costs 7,890,600 23,406,600 6,533,300 Projects and Operations Program Operations 2,000 19,774,900 10,670,200 Engineering 22,436,000 - Construction 1,470, 000 153,948,000 Design Build 141,583,000 Right of Way/Land - 108,498,500 Operating and Capital Disbursements 27,005,000 177,754,400 Special audies 1,271,000 Local areetsand Roads - 58,642,300 %giona I Arterials - 30,000,000 - TOTAL Projects and Operations 29,748,000 712,637,100 10,670,200 Debt Service Principa I Payments - - 27,245,000 - Interest Payments - - 42,289,500 7,119,900 TOTAL Debt Service - - 69,534,500 7,119,900 Capital Outlay 1,306,000 3,232,000 - 750,000 TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses 48,269,200 747,994,200 69,534,500 26,426,800 Excess(deficiency)of Revenuesover (under)Expenditures/Expenses (36,710,300) (133,764,900) 1,371,700 (66,382,800) 16,964,700 Other Fina ncing Sources (Uses) Tra nsters In 40,408,800 52,264,600 72,534,500 - TranstersOut (3,394,600) (131,548,200) (24,402,400) (2,803,200) (3,059,500) TIRA Loan Proceeds - 75,703,000 - Net Rnancing Sources (Uses) 37,014,200 (3,580,600) (24,402,400) 69,731,300 (3,059,500) Excess(deficiency)of Revenues over (under)Expenditures/Expensesand Other Fnancing Sources (Uses) 303,900 (137,345,500) (23,030,700) 3,348,500 13,905,200 Beginning Fund Balance 23,699,700 597,480,600 92,985,500 14,422,700 63,721,600 ENDING RIND BALANCE $ 24,003,600 $ 460,135,100 $ 69,954,800 $ 17,771,200 $ 77,626,800 $ 193,000,000 97,000,000 31,050,600 88,718,700 173,799,200 9,957,900 25,000,000 41,869,400 553,000 12,754,300 673,703,100 19,396,500 25,447,300 12,383,200 37,830,500 30,447,100 22,436,000 155,418,000 141,583,000 108,498,500 204,759,400 1,271,000 58,642,300 30,000,000 753,055,300 27,245,000 49,409,400 76,654,400 5,288,000 892,224,700 (218,521,600) 165,207,900 (165,207,900) 75,703,000 75,703,000 (142,818,600) 792,310,100 $ 649,491,500 51 Table 20 - Highway, Regional Arterial, and Rail Programs FY 2019/20 Description HIGHWAY ENGINEERING 60/215 Riverside - Moreno Valley express lanes $ 300,000 71/91 connector 2,500,000 Grade separation projects 4,100,000 Hamner Bridge widening 508,000 1-15 Express Lanes southern extension 6,000,000 Mid County Parkway (MCP) 500,000 MCP I-215/Placentia interchange 300,000 MCP Sweeney mit igaf ion 50,000 MCP construction contract package 2,000,000 Pachappa underpass 100,000 Riverside County -Santa Ana River Trail (detailspresented in .%ctions5.2Planning and Programming and 5.3Capital Projects) 850,000 SR-60 Jurupa - Riverside express lanes 325,000 SR-74 corridor- Ethanac Road 1,157,700 SR-79 realignment 300,000 SR-91 downtown Riverside express lanes 325,000 General (detailspresented in Sbction 5.3Capital Projects) 86,000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY ENGINEERING 19,401,700 REGIONAL ARTERIAL ENGINEERING 1-15 Railroad Canyon interchange Various Western County MARA and TUMF regional arterial projects SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL ENGINEERING 600,000 364,300 964,300 RAIL ENGINEERING Moreno Valley March Field station upgrade 900,000 Riverside layover facility 170,000 Riverside Downtown station track and platform 1,000,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL ENGINEERING 2,070,000 101ALHIGHWAY, REGIONALARIE2IAL, AND RAILENGINEEZING $ 22,436,000 HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION 15/91 Express Lanes connector $ 1,053,000 91 Project 1,471,000 1-15 Express Lanes 7,984,000 I-15/Limonite interchange 17,000,000 1-215 condor improvements (central segment)/Scott Road to Nuevo Road 10,000 MCP I-215/Placentia interchange 13,000,000 MCP Sweeney mitigation 5,200,000 Pachappa underpass 15,900,000 Riverside County -Santa Ana River Trail(detailspresented in .%ctions 5.2 Planning and Programming and 5.3 Capital Projects) 5,000,000 SR-60 truck lanes 69,000,000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION 135,618,000 REGIONAL ARTERIAL CONSTRUCTION Various Western County MARA and TUMF regional arterial projects SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL CONSTRUCTION RAIL CONSTRUCTION Perris Valley Line and other related rail projects Riverside layover facility Other Riverside Downtown station mobility improvements (detailspresented in fiction 5.2Rail) SUBTOTAL RAIL CONSTRUCTION 101AL HIGHWAY, REGIONALARIEIAL AND RAILCONSIRUCTION 13,900,000 13,900,000 30,000 4,400,000 1,470,000 5,900,000 $ 155,418,000 HIGHWAY DESIGN BUILD 15/91 Express Lanes connector $ 41,718,000 60/215 Riverside - Moreno Valley express lanes 200,000 91 corridor operations project 2,729,000 91 Project 6,923,000 1-15 Express Lanes 89,613,000 SR-60 Jurupa - Riverside express lanes 200,000 SR-91 downtown Riverside express lanes 200,000 10TALHIGHWAY DESGN BUILD $ 141,583,000 HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 15/91 Express Lanes connector $ 495,000 60/215 East Junction high occupancy vehicle (NOV) lane connectors 10,000 71/91 connector 4,600,000 91 Project 16,722,000 Hamner bridge widening 149,000 1-15 Express Lanes 328,000 Jurupa Avenue grade separation 12,000,000 McKinley Avenue grade separation 14,000,000 MCP 10,400,000 MCP I-215/Placentia interchange 13,650,000 MSHCP land acquisition in Western County 3,000,000 Pachappa underpass 175,000 Riverside County -Santa Ana River Trail (detailspresented in ctions 5.2 Planning and Programming and 5.3Capital Projects) 205,000 SR-74/I-15 to 7th Street 15,000 SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 interchange 505,000 General (detailspresented in.%ction 5.3Capital Projects) 74,500 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 76,328,500 REGIONAL ARTERIAL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 1-15 Railroad Canyon interchange Various Western County MARA and TUMF regional arterial projects SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 2,200,000 12,360,000 14,560,000 RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND Riverside layover facility 210,000 Riverside Downtown station track and platform 17,250,000 General 150,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 17,610,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONALAR1EF3AL, AND RAIL RIG HT OF WAY AND LAND $ 108,498,500 GRAND 10TALHIGHWAY, REGIONALAR1ERIAL, AND RAIL PROGRAMS $ 427,935,500 PRO PO SED BUDGET FIAL YEAR 2019/ 20 Michele Cisneros, Deputy Directorof Finance Th e re sia Trevino, Chief 1 min a n c is 1 Officer Budget Process Budget Development • Resource Estimation • Commission Goals • Department Goalsand Budget Development Budget • Analysis Compilation •Reconciliation Budget Review and Adoption • Initial: Executive summary • Final: Budget document FY 2019/ 20 Budget Considerations • Use of accumulated reservesforprojectsand programs, asnecessary • Flexibility to change scope and timing of capital projects • Sgnificant outsourcing of engineering and operations Stabilized salestax and TUMF revenues • Use of LTF/STA reservesfortransit operationsand capital project needs • Use of Measure A and TUMF reservesfor project expenditures RCTC 91 Express Lanesoperations • Toll revenuesbased on historical data and updated traffic and revenue study Financing needsand related costs • TIFIA loan drawdown on the 1-15 Express Lanes project 1 Budget Summary FY 2019/20 Beginning Fund Balance (7/1/2019) Revenues Debt Proceeds Transfers In Total Estimated Sources 673,703,100 75, 703, 000 165,207,900 Expenditures/Expenses (815,570,300) Debt Service (76,654,400) Transfers Out (165,207,900) Total Estimated Uses Uses Over Sources (offset by beginning fund balance) Ending Fund Balance (6/30/2020) $ 792,310,100 914,614,000 (1,057,432,600) (142,818,600) $ 649,491,500 Sources Breakdown Measure A SalesTax LTFSalesTax STA SalesTax Intergovernmental TUM F Revenue Tolls, Penalties, and Fees Other Revenue Investment Income Transfers In Debt Proceeds TOTALSources FY2018/19 FY2018/19 Revised Budge Projected $ 192,000,000 $ 192,000,000 96,000,000 96,000,000 23,203,600 27,110,700 249,188, 300 160, 549, 900 25,922,200 26,672,200 36,940,500 47,756,900 1,084,400 468,500 3,408,000 10,064,800 182,214,300 158,206,600 106, 081, 000 61, 841,100 $ 916,042,300 $ 780,670,700 FY 2019/ 20 Budge $ 193,000,000 97,000,000 31,050,600 272,475,800 25,000,000 41,869,400 553,000 12,754,300 165,207,900 75,703,000 $ 914,614,000 $300 $250 $200 N c $150 2 $100 $50 $- Sources Comparison wn I C7 I■L_ u '\a+ '\a+ \a+ \a � 5 s 0 � ��o ��� �o a� � � �� �06' �Je �`� �a�Gs�0G Sa �Sa sf f�3 a� �z ,\��a� <Zsk ' AP -e��\ k SoJ��•`® `k\ �JO5 O�o FY 2018/ 19 RevisedCP \� sc• ,� M\� QE`C\ ' •C Budget Ld FY 2018/ 19 Projected OFY2019/20 Budget Expenditures! ape nses by Department FY 2018/ 19 Revised Budget FY 2018/ 19 Projected FY 2019/ 20 Budget Capital Highway, Rail, and Regional Arterials Capital Local Streetsand Roads CommuterAssistance Debt Service Management Services Motorist Assistance Planning and Programming Public and Specialized Transit Rail Maintenance and Operations TollOperations TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses $ 631,599,300 58,479,500 6,199,600 96,675,600 23,593,800 10,004,600 20,464,700 210,341,400 41,119,800 25.156.600 $ 430,098,100 58,479,500 4,708,300 92,205,600 19,784,300 7,946,300 6,045,300 152,669,200 34,413,400 21.695.000 1.123.634.900 828.045.000 $ 606,640,600 58,642,300 4,880,800 76,654,400 24,413,500 9,364,500 14,512,900 193,728,700 46,228,500 22,366,400 $ 1,057,432,600 N C 0 2 Bcpenditures/Expenses Comparison liaimi_i �. NIEL» �°�\a°ads �G•G.G°S�G.te' �to�4\ • 6\ .6\° ° ° am\a 5�e', �� °a. °�a \PdS\ Sa06 a a� PS °°p � P dG� icoGQ te�S��5Q J Q ° d° ° 6cP°G o �� ��a Q\a Q J•0 a\\ rya GG �& id FY2018/19 Revised Budget a���a' u FY 2018/ 19 Projected a� � FY2019/20 Budget G $650 $600 $550 $500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 Capital Development and Delivery Department Highlights 1-15 ExpressLanes 15/91 ExpressLanesConnector I-15/Limonite Interchange Expenditures/ Expenses by Function FY 2018/ 19 Revised Bud • et FY 2018/ 19 Pro'e c to FY 2019/ 20 Pe rc a nt Bud et Chan Salariesand Benefits Professional Services Support Costs Projectsand Operations Debt Service Capital Outlay TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses *Excludestransfersout $ 10,354,700 20,451,700 11,911,000 791,190,600 76,675,600 10,837,000 $ 9,917,000 13,902,600 9,363,200 535,102,500 72,205,600 9,347,500 $ 921,420,600 $ 649,838,400 $ 19,396,500 25,447,300 12,383,200 753,055,300 76,654,400 5,288,000 $ 892,224,700 87% 24 % 4% - 5% 0% -51 % - 3% Expenditures) Bcpenses by Function Comparison w c 0 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 Sa lades and Benefits Profes5ionaI&rvices alp port Costs Projects and Operations Debt rvice Capital Outlay uFY2018/19Revised Budget u FY 2018/ 19 Projected ❑FY2019/20 Budget "Ex c lud e s tra nsfe rs out Next Steps Continue monitoring revenuesand costs Measure A administrative salariesand benefits SalesTax and IUMFrevenue trends Funding needsforprojectsand transit operations Timelinessof federal and state reimbursements Obtain Execut e Committee approval May One-time disbursement to pay off CaIPERSnet pension liability Open public hearing May 8, 2019 Receive input on the proposed budget and open the public hearing v Close public hearing and adopt budget June 2019 Review the final budget draft, close the public hearing, and adopt the final budget AGENDA ITEM 9A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3, 2018 (3Q 2018). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement with MuniServices, LLC (MuniServices), an Avenu Company, for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees contingent on additional sales tax revenues generated from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) audit services. As part of the recurring contracts process in June 2018, the Commission approved a five-year extension through June 30, 2023. The services performed under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales tax revenues. Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices submitted audits, which reported findings and submitted to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), as successor to the California State Board of Equalization, for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 881 businesses. Through 3Q 2018, the CDTFA approved 573 of these accounts for a cumulative sales tax recovery of $9,526,043. Updated amounts for 3Q 2018 will be provided once received from MuniServices. If CDTFA concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission will receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues. Additionally, MuniServices provided the Commission with the Quarterly Sales Tax Digest Summary report for 3Q 2018. Most of the 3Q 2018 Measure A sales tax revenues were received in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2018, during October 2018 through December 2018, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar. The summary section of the 3Q 2018 report is attached and includes an overview of California's economic outlook, local results, historical cash collections analysis by quarter, top 25 sales/use tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, annual sales Agenda Item 9A 53 tax by business category, and five-year economic trend for significant business category (general retail). As reported to the Commission in November 2018, the CDTFA implemented a new automation system in May 2018, and encountered some issues that included delays in tax return processing. This included numerous sales tax returns for the first two quarters of calendar year 2018 unprocessed at the CDTFA. The CDTFA has been responsive and committed to resolving the issues and completed the 1Q and 2Q 2018 unprocessed sales tax returns and has an insignificant amount of 3Q 2018 unprocessed sales tax returns. Staff continues to work closely with MuniServices to receive regular updates on the CDTFA unprocessed sales tax returns. Taxable transactions for the top 25 contributors in Riverside County generated 24.3 percent of taxable sales for the benchmark year ended 3Q 2018, slightly higher than the 22.8 percent for the benchmark year ended 3Q 2017. The top 100 tax contributors generated 38.8 percent, slightly higher than the 36.8 percent for the benchmark year ended 3Q 2017. In the Economic Category Analysis below, five of the six categories experienced new highs in the 3Q 2018 benchmark year compared to the prior eight benchmark years. The Miscellaneous category is below the 3Q 2015 benchmark year due to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) change to sales taxes being reported using a unique transaction code rather than historically as a sales tax permit. The DMV sales tax reporting change will be reflected correctly in the 4Q 2018 report. ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS %of Total / %Change RCTC State Wide Orange County San Bernardino County S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast North Coast Central Coast General Retail 28.1 / 6.5 27.0 / 1.9 27.9 / 2.3 26.0 / 3.0 24.9 / 1.8 26.9 / 1.4 30.2 / 3.6 27.6 / 1.7 28.1 / -6.1 29.2 / 2.5 Food Products 17.4/8.1 20.8/5.1 20.4/6.0 15.2/7.9 21.6/3.8 17.4/6.4 16.3/5.3 22.5/5.5 17.1/-10.9 30.7/5.1 Transportation 25.2 / 5.7 23.9 / 5.1 23.3 / 4.3 26.8 / 2.0 22.1 / 12.0 28.8 / 5.5 25.8 / 5.1 23.0 / 3.0 29.7 / -7.3 22.6 / 9.3 Construction 10.9/12.2 9.9/13.7 8.9/13.1 9.5/16.4 9.9/13.1 11.8/15.3 11.7/16.2 8.9/12.7 13.5/7.4 8.2/24.4 Business to Business 16.6/6.6 17.2/5.3 18.2/3.7 20.3/5.7 20.4/7.2 14.1/4.0 15.2/10.3 16.8/4.6 10.1/-4.7 8.6/1.9 Miscellaneous 1.8/-14.8 1.2/11.0 1.3/4.5 2.2/6.1 1.2/20.4 1.0/0.0 0.7/8.6 1.2/9.2 1.6/19.1 0.8/4.2 Total 100.0 / 6.7 100.0/5.1 100.0/4.7 100.0/5.2 100.0/6.7 100.0/5.3 100.0/6.6 100.0/4.3 100.0/-5.3 100.0/6.3 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales - New, Auto Sales - Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, Leasing, Biotechnology, I.T. Infrastructure, and Green Energy Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments An analysis of sales tax performance by quarter through 3Q 2018 is attached and illustrates fairly consistent cycles for sales tax performance for most of the economic categories since 3Q 2013. For 9 of the top 10 segments (auto sales -new, restaurants, department stores, miscellaneous retail, building materials -wholesale, apparel stores, food markets, building materials -retail, and heavy industry) during the eight benchmark year quarters, sales tax receipts reached a new high point. The segments represent 65.3 percent of the total sales tax receipts. Service stations representing 8.3 percent was higher than the last five benchmark year quarters since 3Q 2014. Agenda Item 9A 54 The top 10 segments represent 73.6 percent of the total sales tax receipts. For the other 21 segments representing 26.4 percent of the total sales tax receipts, 11 segments representing 19 percent of the total sales tax receipts reached new high points in the benchmark year 3Q 2018. In the Economic Segments Analysis below, auto sales -new and department stores have been in the top three economic segments. Restaurants replaced service station in the top three economic segments beginning in 4Q 2014. The service stations segments high occurred in 4Q 2012 and declined through 1Q 2017 due to lower fuel prices; the 3Q 2018 benchmark year quarter for service stations reflects an increase over the last five benchmark years quarters since 3Q 2014 due to rising fuel prices. ECONOMIC SEGMENT ANALYSIS RCTC State Wide Orange County San Bernardino County S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast North Coast Central Coast Largest Segment Auto Sales- New Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Auto Sales- New Department Stores Restaurants Department Stores Restaurants %ofTotal /%Change 11.2/0.7 14.8/3.6 15.1/4.3 10.3/4.9 15.6/3.8 13.4/3.6 12.1/0.9 16.6/3.6 10.8/-3.7 21.9/4.0 2nd Largest Segment Restaurants Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Department Stores Auto Sales - New Restaurants Restaurants Auto Sales - New Restaurants Auto Sales - New %ofTotal /%Change 11.2/4.8 10.9/3.3 11.5/3.8 10.0/0.4 11.7/13.1 11.6/5.3 10.6/3.9 10.5/0.8 10.5/-9.0 11.4/10.4 3rd Largest Segment Department Stores Department Stores Department Stores Service Stations Department Stores Department Stores Auto Sales- New Department Stores Service Stations Misc Retail %ofTotal /%Change 9.4/2.3 8.7/0.5 8.5/0.6 9.8/11.6 7.0/1.7 10.3/0.6 10.4/-0.1 8.4/0.7 10.5/-0.3 9.8/3.5 During the review of the 3Q 2018 detailed report with MuniServices, staff was informed of a reporting error by one of the top 25 sales/use tax contributors related to a misallocation of the district tax to the Commission during 2Q 2018 through 4Q 2018, resulting in an overpayment to the Commission estimated in the amount of $2.5 million. Staff is not certain in which period the misallocation correction will be completed; however, the Fiscal Year 2019 sales tax revenues after the correction are expected to continue to reflect an increase over the FY 2018 revenues. Information regarding sales tax comparison by city and change in economic segments (two highest gains and two highest losses) from 3Q 2017 to 3Q 2018 is attached. Staff continues to monitor monthly sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the need for any adjustments to the revenue projections. Staff will utilize the forecast scenarios included with the complete report and receipt trends in assessing such projection. Attachment: 1) Sales Tax Digest Summary 3Q 2018 2) Sales Tax Performance by Quarter 3Q 2018 3) Quarterly Sales Tax Comparison by City for 3Q 2017 to 3Q 2018 Agenda Item 9A 55 ATTACHMENT 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections through December 2018 Sales through September 2018 (2018Q3) CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMIC OUTLOOK California sales tax receipts increased by 22.9% over the same quarter from the previous year, with Northern California reporting a 23.8% increase compared to 22.3% for Southern California. Receipts for the RCTC increased by 26.7% over the same periods. Unprecedented increases were due to California Department of Tax and Fee Administration implementation of new reporting system and processing of many sales tax returns filed for the prior three quarters in the current quarter. • GDP: Rose 3.4% in 302018; 4.2% in 202018. California GDP rose by 3.3% in the second quarter of 2018, following 3.7% growth in the first quarter on a year -over -year basis. • E-Commerce as a Percent of Total U.S. Sales (3Q2018): 9.8% in 302018. 9.6% in 202018. 9.4% in 102018. 9.1% in 402017. 302018 e-commerce estimate increased 14.5% from 302018 while total retail sales increased 5.3% in the same period. E-commerce sales in 302018 accounted for 9.8% of total sales. • Holiday Spending: Retail sales rose 5.1% between November 1 and December 24 from a year ago. Total sales topped $850 billion this year. Online sales continued to grow, up more than 19% from a year ago. Online sales made up 13% of total retail sales. LOCAL RESULTS Net Cash Receipts Analysis Local Collections Share of County Pool 0.0% Share of State Pool 0.0% SBE Net Collections Less: Amount Due County 0.0% Less: Cost of Administration Net 302018 Receipts Net 302017 Receipts Actual Percentage Change $55,558,164 0 0 55,558,164 .00 (500,220) 55,057,944 47,892,420 26.7% Business Activity Performance Analysis Local Collections — Economic Basis 302018 Local Collections — Economic Basis 302017 Quarter over Quarter Change Quarter over Quarter Percentage Change $46,291,846 $43,882,787 2,409,059 5.5 Avenu Insights & Analytics' On -Going Audit Results Total Recovered Year to Date $9,526,403 www.avenuinsights.com (8tV 800-8181 Page 1 RCTC HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER (in thousands of $) $60,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $- 2Q2016 302016 4Q2016 102017 2Q2017 302017 402017 102018 2Q2018 3Q2018 Net Receipts fCDTFA Admin Fees Due $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $- TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies RCTC's Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents sales from October 2017 to September 2018. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 24.3% of RCTC's total sales and use tax revenue. 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORES AMAZON.COM ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS BEST BUY STORES CARMAX THE AUTO SUPERSTORE CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS CIRCLE K FOOD STORES COSTCO WHOLESALE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES FERGUSON ENTERPRISES FOOD 4 LESS HOME DEPOT KOHL'S LOWE'S HOME CENTERS MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE MCDONALD'S RALPH'S ROSS STORES SAM'S CLUB SHELL SERVICE STATIONS STATER BROS MARKETS TARGET STORES VERIZON WIRELESS WAL MART STORES WALGREEN'S www.avenuinsights.com (800) 800-8181 57 Page 2 RCTC HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS The following chart shows the sales tax level from annual sales through September 2018, the highs, and the lows for each segment over the last two years in thousands of $. • 520,000 515,000 510,000 $5,000 $- I I ec e OQ�a�� 4" �o�es ems` ,c JyP 0 I t t 4a~\OCy � 4e' �ca 4\2' QQa 5e .7P P ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY 3Q2018 2Q2018 1Q2018 4Q2017 3Q2017 2Q2017 1Q2017 4Q2016 3Q2016 202016 010 30,277 30,881 28,623 (in thousands of $) 47,586 18,356 29,299 19,004 28,542 17,513 28,470 47,639 27,536 42,263 17,081 26,236 ' 159 ■ 3Q2018 ▪ High • Low I ea~a\ stiff 2s $ 0 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 100,000 $ 120,000 $ 140,000 $ 160,000 $ 180,000 $ 200,000 ■ General Retail ■ Food Products ■ Transportation ■ Construction II Business To Business Miscellaneous www.avenuinsights.com (800) 800-8181 58 Page 3 RCTC FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: General Retail $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $5,000 $4,00❑ $2,000 $- (in thousands of $) . ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ .... . ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ .... . ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ .... . ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ . ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ m u) Ln uD uD uD u n n n r• 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 www.avenuinsights.com (800) 800-8181 59 Page 4 RCTC: Sales Tax Performance Analysis by Quarter ATTACHMENT 2 TOTAL TOTAL $60, 000, 000 $50, 000, 000 $40, 000, 000 $30, 000, 000 $20, 000, 000 $10, 000, 000 $0 Or 0- O- Cr Crr Oti Cr Cr Cr 0. Cr tiC') ti4 ti(0 ti(0 ti^ ti tiC tiCb Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Economic CATEGORY TOTAL $16,000,000 2018Q3 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $46,291,846 5.5% $2,409,059 6.6% $11,829,643 $14, 000, 000 GENERAL RETAIL $12, 000, 000 % of 2018Q3 Total: 27.4% 2018Q3 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $12,671,482 10.7% $1,229,578 6.5% $3,238,581 FOOD PRODUCTS $10,000,000 2018Q3 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $� $7,527,056 7.2% $504,870 8.1% $2,441,684 % of Total: 16.3% $8, 000, 000 'TRANSPORTATION $12,440,661 2018Q3 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $6,000,000 6.8% $789,580 5.7% $2,553,482 of Total: 26.9% $4,000,000 CONSTRUCTION 2018Q3 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $5,163,949 3.4% $169,143 12.2% $2,244,007 $2,000,000 % of Total: 11.2% BUSINESS TO BUSINESS 2018Q3 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $7,563,985 2.7% $198,912 6.6% $1,930,167 % of Total: 16.3% QoQ = 18Q3 / 17Q3 YoY = YE 18Q3 / YE 17Q3 60 Quarterly Comparison of 2017Q3 and 2018Q3 (July through September Sales) N General Retail Food Products Transportation Construction 3 tn co m o o F a, C A N Jul - Sep 2018 Jul - Sep 2018 g (2018Q3) (2017Q3) % Chg Gain Gain ATTACHMENT 3 Decline Decline RIVERSIDE COUNTY - BANNING -13.6% 9.9% 20.4% -33.7% 229.4% -8.3% 692,759 574,939 20.5% Florist/Nursery Light Industry Energy Sales Heavy Industry BEAUMONT -7.6% 4.7% 12.0% 7.5% -35.0% 11.2% 1,079,757 1,075,196 0.4% Auto Sales - Used Business Services Light Industry Drug Stores BLYTHE -60.3% 12.1% 0.5% 1.0% 50.0% -65.5% 337,289 351,850 -4.1% Florist/Nursery Light Industry Business Services Miscellaneous Other CALIMESA 4.0% 14.1% 16.4% -5.0% 36.6% 23.9% 208,300 181,363 14.9% Electronic Equipment Recreation Products Business Services Misc. Vehicle Sales CANYON LAKE -12.2% 15.9% 472.5% -97.5% -5.0% -2.5% 116,244 52,712 120.5% Auto Parts/Repair Food Markets BIdg.Matls-Whsle Apparel Stores CATHEDRAL CITY 4.3% 1.2% 4.9% 12.7% -2.1% -12.9% 2,074,423 1,998,905 3.8% Miscellaneous Retail Service Stations Electronic Equipment Energy Sales COACHELLA -5.2% 7.2% 11.0% -20.3% 13.5% -29.0% 774,182 727,380 6.4% Leasing Business Services Health & Government Drug Stores CORONA -5.6% 1.3% 2.5% 4.6% -14.3% -36.3% 9,759,800 10,015,616 -2.6% Food Markets Misc. Vehicle Sales Health & Government Food Processing Eqp COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE -1.1% 4.9% 11.4% 18.5% -9.2% -2.0% 6,677,528 6,427,519 3.9% Auto Sales - Used Auto Sales - New Leasing Drug Stores DESERT HOT SPGS 1.7% 2.8% 14.2% -32.0% -19.1% -71.7% 352,545 335,903 5.0% Florist/Nursery Miscellaneous Retail Recreation Products BIdg.Matls-Whsle EASTVALE 24.0% 2.6% 31.7% -11.0% -43.7% 42.4% 2,006,769 1,986,431 1.0% Florist/Nursery Leasing Electronic Equipment Heavy Industry HEMET -3.3% 7.1% -9.2% 1.2% -6.7% -3.7% 2,580,137 2,689,707 -4.1% BIdg.Matls-Whsle Service Stations Food Processing Eqp Heavy Industry INDIAN WELLS 16.7% 29.3% 0.0% 303.1% -59.1% -91.6% 128,056 105,432 21.5% Furniture/Appliance BIdg.Matls-Whsle Miscellaneous Other Heavy Industry INDIO 0.9% 5.7% 2.7% -19.3% 11.3% 6.1% 2,376,470 2,362,535 0.6% Heavy Industry Food Processing Eqp Electronic Equipment Office Equipment JURUPA VALLEY 1.0% 4.9% 11.7% 15.5% 6.8% 4.2% 2,753,269 2,552,602 7.9% I.T. Infrastructure Biotechnology Florist/Nursery Drug Stores LA QUINTA -0.3% 11.3% -1.3% 7.5% 11.0% -9.1% 1,609,352 1,559,981 3.2% Chemical Products BIdg.Matls-Whsle Light Industry Electronic Equipment LAKE ELSINORE -5.4% 0.7% -6.4% -0.2% 40.4% -2.8% 2,109,532 2,146,476 -1.7% Light Industry Chemical Products Green Energy Misc. Vehicle Sales MENIFEE -6.7% 3.9% 19.9% 5.7% 12.0% 157.9% 1,839,890 1,750,999 5.1% Miscellaneous Other Business Services Food Processing Eqp Florist/Nursery MORENO VALLEY -3.7% 7.7% 9.3% -0.5% 0.2% 37.8% 4,344,816 4,198,817 3.5% Chemical Products Florist/Nursery Energy Sales Drug Stores MURRIETA -2.8% 18.5% -0.1% -2.7% 16.6% -41.4% 3,975,991 3,876,090 2.6% Leasing Food Markets Electronic Equipment Miscellaneous Other NORCO 1.4% 7.8% 5.7% -8.2% 9.6% 105.3% 1,617,234 1,542,336 4.9% Miscellaneous Other Misc. Vehicle Sales Electronic Equipment Energy Sales PALM DESERT -1.7% 2.9% 67.5% 8.7% 11.5% -13.4% 3,436,317 3,218,214 6.8% Auto Sales - New Leasing Drug Stores Heavy Industry PALM SPRINGS 1.6% 2.2% 6.3% 10.5% 19.0% -19.9% 2,425,165 2,303,282 5.3% Chemical Products Energy Sales Miscellaneous Other Drug Stores PERRIS 39.5% 10.4% 7.2% -19.1% -19.4% 10.6% 4,219,494 3,827,116 10.3% Florist/Nursery Apparel Stores Food Processing Eqp Light Industry RANCHO MIRAGE 4.1% 4.5% 8.3% 7.0% 21.6% 5.5% 1,071,792 991,826 8.1% Leasing Food Processing Eqp Heavy Industry Liquor Stores RIVERSIDE -5.8% 4.6% 3.0% 12.6% 4.7% -1.6% 14,322,257 13,953,839 2.6% Electronic Equipment Food Markets I.T. Infrastructure Food Processing Eqp SAN JACINTO 0.3% 8.6% 16.9% 5.2% -2.3% -0.8% 702,379 650,573 8.0% Light Industry Auto Sales - Used Recreation Products Drug Stores TEMECULA -3.7% 6.8% -4.6% 21.5% -6.4% -32.6% 8,155,441 8,288,529 -1.6% I.T. Infrastructure Biotechnology Miscellaneous Other Office Equipment WILDOMAR -8.3% 15.8% 23.3% -11.6% 28.1% 26.3% 465,223 399,473 16.5% Miscellaneous Other Apparel Stores Auto Sales - Used Chemical Products Non -Confidential 61 MuniServices, an Avenu Company AGENDA ITEM 9B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Matt Wallace, Procurement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2019. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Certain contracts are executed under single signature authority as permitted in the Commission's Procurement Policy Manual adopted in June 2018. The Executive Director is authorized to sign services contracts that are less than $150,000 individually and in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1.5 million in any given fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 130323(c), the Executive Director is authorized to sign contracts for supplies, equipment, materials, and construction of all facilities and works under $50,000 individually. The attached report details all contracts that have been executed for the third quarter ended March 31, 2019, under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director. The unused capacity of single signature authority for services at March 31, 2019 is $1,226,119. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of March 31, 2019 Agenda item 9B 62 CONSULTANT SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF March 31, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ORIGINAL CONTRACT REMAINING PAID AMOUNT AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2018 $1,500,000.00 NetFile Form 700 E-filing and administration system 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 ECS Imaging, Inc. Laserfiche document management services 44,794.00 27,588.00 17,206.00 S2 Engineering, Inc. Construction Management Svcs. - La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project 150,000.00 144,069.06 5,930.94 Potter Handy DBA Center for Disability Settlement agreement 12,000.00 12,000.00 0.00 Macias, Gini, O'Connell State of Good Repair audited financial statements for FY18 and FY19 7,000.00 0.00 7,000.00 UCR School of Business Sales tax analysis for two additional revenue scenarios and a modified demoaraohic forecast 16,000.00 0.00 16,000.00 Department of Toxic Substances Control Provide environmental hazard oversight and assessment for Downtown Riverside station platform expansion project 29,087.00 29,087.00 0.00 AMOUNT USED AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING through March 31, 2019 273,881.00 273,881.00 $1, 226,119.00 None Agreements that fall under Public Utilities Code 130323 (C) N/A $- $- $- Prepared by Theresia Trevino Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the third quarter. 63 AGENDA ITEM 9C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jillian Guizado, Legislative Affairs Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following bill position: a) AB 456 (Chiu, Bonta, Low) — Oppose; and 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. DISCUSSION: State Update In September 2016, the Commission adopted an oppose position on AB 626 by Assemblymembers Chiu and Low. AB 626 (2016) was a bill that added a significant degree of complexity to the Public Contract Code relating to claims by contractors and subcontractors on public works contracts. The bill established a claims resolution process for public works contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017, a process that was supplemental to existing claims processes spelled out in state law. As a result, public agencies have specific deadlines that need to be met to meet when reviewing and formally responding to claims submitted by contractors. This has brought about the potential for public agencies to be subject to additional claims due to the law prescribing a process that allows subcontractors that lack legal standing to bring a claim directly to an agency through the prime contractor. Untimely payment of claims are subjected to a 7 percent interest penalty. AB 626 (2016) included a sunset date of January 1, 2020. DISCUSSION: AB 456 (Chiu, Bonta, Low) — Staff Recommended Position: Oppose This legislative session, the original authors of AB 626 (2016) have introduced AB 456. This bill would remove the sunset date of January 1, 2020, proposing to make the statute permanent. While the Commission has not yet seen an uptick in claims as it expected after the passage of AB 626 (2016), engaging on this bill is likely the last opportunity for the Commission to influence Agenda Item 9C 64 this policy matter, which is consistent with both the Commission's past actions on legislation that add costs, delays, risk, and complexity to transportation projects and the Commission's adopted 2019 State and Federal Legislative Platform (Platform). The Commission's Platform includes a principle to protect our authority and revenue by opposing legislation that amends procurement law in a manner that increases the Commission's exposure to litigation, costs, decreased private sector competition, conflicts of interest, or deviation from best practices. Federal Update The United States Department of Transportation is expected to release a notice of funding opportunity for the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development discretionary (competitive) grant program in mid -April. Staff anticipates having additional information to report on this opportunity at its April 22, 2019 Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting. Attachment: Legislative Matrix — May 2019 Agenda Item 9C 65 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION — MAY 2019 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 252 (Daly, Frazier) Removes the sunset date from the NEPA Reciprocity program. Passed Transportation Committee; referred to Appropriations Committee and placed on suspense file. (March 20, 2019) SUPPORT 3/13/19 AB 1402 (Petrie -Norris) Makes substantive changes to the Active Transportation Program administered by the State, allocating 75% of funds to be distributed by large MPOs. Referred to Committee on Transportation. (March 27, 2019) SUPPORT 4/1/19 SB 152 (Beall) Makes substantive changes to the Active Transportation Program administered by the State, allocating 75% of funds to be distributed by large MPOs. Passed Senate Transportation Committee, referred to Senate Appropriations. (April 10, 2019) SUPPORT 4/1/19 AB 626 (Quirk -Silva) Seeks to dictate that professionals who provide professional services on one phase of a project be deemed not to have a conflict of interest in subsequent project phases, disregarding the Commission's adopted Procurement Policy. Passed Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee, referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. (April 10, 2019) OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED 4/10/19 66 AGENDA ITEM 9D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Stephanie Blanco, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the Completion of Project Approval/Environmental Document for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project -Southern Extension WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 19-31-025-00 to HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to provide preliminary engineering and environmental analysis services for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project - Southern Extension (1-15 ELPSE), in the amount of $26,320,011, plus a contingency amount of $2,632,001, for a total amount not to exceed $28,952,012; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work as may be required for the Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 1-15 ELPSE would add two express lanes in each direction on 1-15 from Cajalco Road to State Route 74 (Central Avenue). See Figure 1 below for a project location map. The purpose of the project is to: • Improve traffic operations and travel times for general purpose lane users; • Expand travel choices with the addition of express lanes and carpooling; • Increase travel time reliability for all corridor users; and • Provide travel time -savings and travel time certainty for express lane users. Agenda Item 9D 67 Project Limits North: RIV-15 PM 36.8 Lake Matthews ca}alt:o Rd ecp° e� Legend Project Limits 0 interchange Unincorporated Riverside County ,I to R -. Lake ainore Project Limits South: RIV-15 PM 22.3 Lake Elsinore a Cleveland National Forest Canyon Lake f I Figure 1: Project Location Map At its September 2017 meeting, the Commission approved the 1-15 ELPSE as one of three project recommendations to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the 2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In March 2018, the CTC approved $50 million of STIP funding for the project approval/environmental document (PA/ED) development phase of the 1-15 ELPSE. However, this STIP funding will not be available for obligation until Fiscal Year 2022/23. Therefore, staff conducted a programming analysis and identified that the PA/ED development phase was eligible for Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. The PA/ED services will be funded with about $29 million in CMAQ funds. Agenda Item 9D 68 The 1-15 ELPSE environmental document is anticipated to be an environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) based on prior studies and overall experience in the 1-15 corridor. Formal scoping meetings are expected to start in July 2019. It is expected that the PA/ED phase with an EIR/EIS will be completed in five years with anticipated completion in 2024. Procurement Process: Pursuant to Government Code 4525 et seq, the selection of architect, engineer, and related services shall be on the basis of demonstrated competence and on professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Therefore, staff used the qualification method of selection for the procurement of these services. Evaluation criteria included elements such as qualifications of firm, qualifications of personnel, project understanding and approach, and the ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of a request for qualifications (RFQ). RFQ No. 19-31-025-00 for preliminary engineering and environmental analysis services for the 1-15 ELPSE was released on November 7, 2018. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFQ was posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Through PlanetBids, 100 firms downloaded the RFQ, 16 of these firms are located in Riverside County. A pre -proposal conference was held on November 21, 2018, and attended by 31 firms. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the December 20, 2018, clarification deadline date. Five firms — AECOM (Orange); EXP U.S. Services, Inc. (San Bernardino); HDR (Riverside); WKE, Inc. (Santa Ana); and WSP USA Inc. (San Bernardino) — submitted responsive and responsible statements of qualifications (SOQ) prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on January 28, 2019. Based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ, the firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission, Bechtel, and Caltrans staff. Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written SOQs and pursuant to the terms of the RFQ, the evaluation committee shortlisted and invited four firms (AECOM, HDR, WKE, Inc. and WSP USA Inc.) to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews were conducted on February 21, 2019. The evaluation committee conducted a subsequent evaluation of each firm, based on both written and interview components presented to the evaluation committee by each proposer. Accordingly, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to HDR to provide preliminary engineering and environmental analysis services for the 1-15 ELPSE, as it earned the highest total evaluation score. Subsequently, staff negotiated the scope (including the appropriate level of effort, labor categories/mix, etc.), cost, and schedule proposal received from HDR for the project services and established a fair and reasonable price. As part of the federal procurement process for architectural and engineering services, HDR and its subconsultants' proposed Indirect Cost Agenda Item 9D 69 Rates subject to audit by Caltrans' Independent Office of Audits and Investigations (10AI). The proposed cost is $26,320,011 and may change slightly as a result of the IOAI audit. The proposed cost is expected to be finalized prior to Commission approval in May. Recommendation Staff recommends award of Agreement No. 19-31-025-00 to HDR to perform preliminary engineering and environmental analysis services for the 1-15 ELPSE, based on the final project scope and cost, in the amount of $26,320,011, plus a contingency amount of $2,632,001, for a total amount not to exceed $28,952,012. The Commission's model professional services agreement will be entered into with HDR, subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director and pursuant to legal counsel review. Further, staff recommends authorization for the Chair or Executive Director to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and for the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the project. Financial Information Yes FY 2018/19 $ 150,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2019/20 Amount: $ 6,000,000 N/A FY 2020/21+ $ 22,802,012 No Source of Funds: CMAQ Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003044 81101 00000 0000 262 3181101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \P��,i Date: 04/23/2019 Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 19-31-025-00 Agenda Item 9D 70 Agreement No. 19-31-025-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FHWA FUNDING/ASSISTANCE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT — SOUTHERN EXTENSION Parties and Date. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2019, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ("Consultant"), a CORPORATION. The Commission and Consultant are sometimes referred to herein individually as "Party", and collectively as the "Parties". Recitals. A. On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2 %) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). B. Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., the Commission is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. C. On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved an extension of the Measure A tax for an additional thirty (30) years for the continued funding of transportation and improvements within the County of Riverside. D. A source of funding for payment for professional services provided under this Agreement is federal funds administered by the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") from the United States Department of Transportation pursuant to the following project/program: CMAQ. 17336.03400\31233218.1 71 E. Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional services required by the Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing preliminary engineering environmental analysis, public outreach, and project management services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California (if necessary), and is familiar with the plans of the Commission. F. The Commission desires to engage Consultant to render such services for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project — Southern Extension ("Project"), as set forth in this Agreement. Terms. 1. General Scope of Services. Consultant shall furnish all technical and professional services, including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional preliminary engineering environmental analysis, public outreach, and project management services necessary for the Project ("Services"). The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 2. Commencement of Services. The Consultant shall commence work upon receipt of a written "Notice to Proceed" or "Limited Notice to Proceed" from Commission. 3. Pre -Award Audit. As a result of the federal funding for this Project, and to the extent Caltrans procedures apply in connection therewith, issuance of a "Notice to Proceed" may be contingent upon completion and approval of a pre -award audit. Any questions raised during the pre -award audit shall be resolved before the Commission will consider approval of this Agreement. The federal aid provided under this Agreement is contingent on meeting all Federal requirements and could be withdrawn, thereby entitling the Commission to terminate this Agreement, if the procedures are not completed. The Consultant's files shall be maintained in a manner to facilitate Federal and State process reviews. In addition, the applicable federal agency, or Caltrans acting in behalf of a federal agency, may require that prior to performance of any work for which Federal reimbursement is requested and provided, that said federal agency or Caltrans must give to Commission an "Authorization to Proceed". 4. Caltrans Audit Procedures. Consultant and subconsultant contracts, including cost proposals and ICR, are subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, a contract audit, an incurred cost audit, an Independent Cost Review (ICR) Audit, or a CPA ICR audit work paper review. If selected for audit or review, this Agreement, Consultant's cost proposal and ICR and related work papers, if applicable, will be 17336.03400\31233218.1 72 reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR audit work paper review it is Consultant's responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA's work papers including making copies as necessary. This Agreement, Consultant's cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by Consultant and approved by the Commission's contract manager to conform to the audit or review recommendations. Consultant agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into this Agreement by this reference if directed by Commission at its sole discretion. Refusal by Consultant to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state or local governments have access to CPA work papers, will be considered a breach of the Agreement terms and cause for termination of this Agreement and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs. Additional audit provisions applicable to this Agreement are set forth in Sections 23 and 24 of this Agreement. 5. Term. 5.1 This Agreement shall go into effect on the date first set forth above, contingent upon approval by Commission, and Consultant shall commence work after notification to proceed by Commission's Contract Administrator. This Agreement shall end on June 30, 2025, unless extended by contract amendment. 5.2 Consultant is advised that any recommendation for Agreement award is not binding on Commission until this Agreement is fully executed and approved by the Commission. 5.3 This Agreement shall remain in effect until the date set forth above, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 6. Commission's Contract Administrator. The Commission hereby designates the Commission's Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its Contract Administrator for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Contract Administrator"). Commission's Contract Administrator shall have the authority to act on behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Commission's Contract Administrator shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of Consultant's work as it progresses. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Commission's Contract Administrator or his or her designee. 7. Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Mark Hager to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her professional skill and attention, 17336.03400\31233218.1 73 and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall work closely and cooperate fully with Commission's Contract Administrator and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the Services. Consultant's Representative shall be available to the Commission staff at all reasonable times. Any substitution in Consultant's Representative shall be approved in writing by Commission's Contract Administrator. 8. Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to the Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval by the Commission. In the event that the Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of the key personnel, the Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to the provisions herein. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: Mark Hager, Brooke Bannasch, Jason Pack, Brian Calvert, and Robert Chevez. 9. Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform all Services, duties and obligations required by this Agreement to fully and adequately complete the Project. Consultant shall perform the Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Consultant further represents and warrants to the Commission that its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the Commission, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. Any employee of Consultant or its sub - consultants who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project. 10. Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee, agent 17336.03400\31233218.1 74 or representative of the Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 11. Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commission's Contract Administrator, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 11.1 Modification of the Schedule. Consultant shall regularly report to the Commission, through correspondence or progress reports, its progress in providing required Services within the scheduled time periods. Commission shall be promptly informed of all anticipated delays. In the event that Consultant determines that a schedule modification is necessary, Consultant shall promptly submit a revised Schedule of Services for approval by Commission's Contract Administrator. 11.2 Trend Meetings. Consultant shall conduct trend meetings with the Commission's Contract Administrator and other interested parties, as requested by the Commission, on a bi weekly basis or as may be mutually scheduled by the Parties at a standard day and time. These trend meetings will encompass focused and informal discussions concerning scope, schedule, and current progress of Services, relevant cost issues, and future Project objectives. Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution of meeting agendas to be received by the Commission and other attendees no later than three (3) working days prior to the meeting. 11.3 Progress Reports. As part of its monthly invoice, Consultant shall submit a progress report, in a form determined by the Commission, which will indicate the progress achieved during the previous month in relation to the Schedule of Services. Submission of such progress report by Consultant shall be a condition precedent to receipt of payment from the Commission for each monthly invoice submitted. 17336.03400\31233218.1 75 12. Delay in Performance. 12.1 Excusable Delays. Should Consultant be delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any act or Services required by the terms of the Agreement by reason of acts of God or of the public enemy, acts or omissions of the Commission or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual capacities, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusually severe weather, performance of such act shall be excused for the period of such delay. 12.2 Written Notice. If Consultant believes it is entitled to an extension of time due to conditions set forth in subsection 12.1, Consultant shall provide written notice to the Commission within seven (7) working days from the time Consultant knows, or reasonably should have known, that performance of the Services will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure of Consultant to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver by Consultant of any right to an excusable delay in time of performance. 12.3 Mutual Agreement. Performance of any Services under this Agreement may be delayed upon mutual agreement of the Parties. Upon such agreement, Consultant's Schedule of Services shall be extended as necessary by the Commission. Consultant shall take all reasonable steps to minimize delay in completion, and additional costs, resulting from any such extension. 13. Preliminary Review of Work. All reports, working papers, and similar work products prepared for submission in the course of providing Services under this Agreement shall be submitted to the Commission's Contract Administrator in draft form, and the Commission may require revisions of such drafts prior to formal submission and approval. In the event plans and designs are to be developed as part of the Project, final detailed plans and designs shall be contingent upon obtaining environmental clearance as may be required in connection with Federal funding. In the event that Commission's Contract Administrator, in his or her sole discretion, determines the formally submitted work product to be not in accordance with the standard of care established under this Agreement, Commission's Contract Administrator may require Consultant to revise and resubmit the work at no cost to the Commission. 14. Appearance at Hearings. If and when required by the Commission, Consultant shall render assistance at public hearings or other meetings related to the Project or necessary to the performance of the Services. However, Consultant shall not be required to, and will not, render any decision, interpretation or recommendation regarding questions of a legal nature or which may be construed as constituting a legal opinion. 15. Opportunity to Cure; Inspection of Work. Commission may provide Consultant an opportunity to cure, at Consultant's expense, all errors and omissions which may be disclosed during Project implementation. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a timely manner, such correction may be made by the Commission, and the cost thereof charged to Consultant. Consultant shall allow the Commission's 17336.03400\31233218.1 76 Contract Administrator, Caltrans and FHWA to inspect or review Consultant's work in progress at any reasonable time. 16. Claims Filed by Contractor. 16.1 If claims are filed by the Commission's contractor for the Project ("Contractor") relating to work performed by Consultant's personnel, and additional information or assistance from the Consultant's personnel is required by the Commission in order to evaluate or defend against such claims; Consultant agrees to make reasonable efforts to make its personnel available for consultation with the Commission's construction contract administration and legal staff and for testimony, if necessary, at depositions and at trial or arbitration proceedings. 16.2 Consultant's personnel that the Commission considers essential to assist in defending against Contractor claims will be made available on reasonable notice from the Commission. Consultation or testimony will be reimbursed at the same rates, including travel costs that are being paid for the Consultant's personnel services under this Agreement. 16.3 Services of the Consultant's personnel and other support staff in connection with Contractor claims will be performed pursuant to a written contract amendment, if necessary, extending the termination date of this Agreement in order to finally resolve the claims. 16.4 Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to in any way limit Consultant's indemnification obligations contained in Section 29. In the case of any conflict between this Section and Section 29, Section 29 shall govern. This Section is not intended to obligate the Commission to reimburse Consultant for time spent by its personnel related to Contractor claims for which Consultant is required to indemnify and defend the Commission pursuant to Section 29 of this Agreement. 17. Final Acceptance. Upon determination by the Commission that Consultant has satisfactorily completed the Services required under this Agreement and within the term herein, the Commission shall give Consultant a written Notice of Final Acceptance. Upon receipt of such notice, Consultant shall incur no further costs hereunder, unless otherwise specified in the Notice of Final Acceptance. Consultant may request issuance of a Notice of Final Acceptance when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed all Services required under the terms of this Agreement. In the event copyrights are permitted under this Agreement, then in connection with Federal funding, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that the United States Department of Transportation shall have the royalty -free non-exclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work for governmental purposes. 18. Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner 17336.03400\31233218.1 77 affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. For example, and not by way of limitation, Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all implementing regulations, design standards, specifications, previous commitments that must be incorporated in the design of the Project, and administrative controls including those of the United States Department of Transportation. Compliance with Federal procedures may include completion of the applicable environmental documents and approved by the United States Department of Transportation. For example, and not by way of limitation, a signed Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, or published Record of Decision may be required to be approved and/or completed by the United States Department of Transportation. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 19. Fees and Payment. 19.1 The method of payment for this Agreement will be based on actual cost plus a fixed fee. Commission shall reimburse Consultant for actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, travel, equipment rental costs, overhead and other direct costs) incurred by Consultant in performance of the Services. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for actual costs that exceed the estimated wage rates, employee benefits, travel, equipment rental, overhead, and other estimated costs set forth in the approved Consultant cost proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference ("Cost Proposal") unless additional reimbursement is provided for by a written amendment. In no event shall Consultant be reimbursed for overhead costs at a rate that exceeds Commission's approved overhead rate set forth in the Cost Proposal. The overhead rates included in the attached Exhibit "C" shall be fixed for the term of the Master Agreement, and shall not be subject to adjustment. In the event that Commission determines that a change to the Services from that specified in the Cost Proposal and this Agreement is required, the contract time or actual costs reimbursable by Commission shall be adjusted by contract amendment to accommodate the changed work. The maximum total cost as specified in Section 19.8 shall not be exceeded, unless authorized by a written amendment. 19.2 In addition to the allowable incurred costs, Commission shall pay Consultant a fixed fee of one million four hundred thirteen thousand and one hundred nineteen dollars [$1,413,119]. The fixed fee is nonadjustable for the term of this Agreement, except in the event of a significant change in the Scope of Services, and such adjustment is made by written amendment. 17336.03400\31233218.1 78 19.3 Reimbursement for transportation and subsistence costs shall not exceed the rates specified in the approved Cost Proposal. In addition, payments to Consultant for travel and subsistence expenses claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non -represented State employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules, unless otherwise authorized by Commission. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, and Commission has not otherwise approved said rates, then Consultant is responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to the Commission on demand. 19.4 When milestone cost estimates are included in the approved Cost Proposal, Consultant shall obtain prior written approval for a revised milestone cost estimate from the Contract Administrator before exceeding such cost estimate. 19.5 Progress payments shall be made monthly in arrears based on Services provided and allowable incurred costs. A pro rata portion of Consultant's fixed fee shall be included in the monthly progress payments. If Consultant fails to submit the required deliverable items according to the schedule set forth in the Scope of Services, Commission shall have the right to delay payment or terminate this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 Termination. 19.6 No payment shall be made prior to approval of any Services, nor for any Services performed prior to approval of this Agreement. 19.7 Consultant shall be reimbursed, as promptly as fiscal procedures will permit upon receipt by Commission's Contract Administrator of itemized invoices in triplicate. Invoices shall be submitted no later than 45 calendar days after the performance of work for which Consultant is billing. Invoices shall detail the work performed on each milestone and each project as applicable. Invoices shall follow the format stipulated for the approved Cost Proposal and shall reference this Agreement number and project title. Final invoice must contain the final cost and all credits due Commission including any equipment purchased under the Equipment Purchase provisions of this Agreement. The final invoice should be submitted within 60 calendar days after completion of Consultant's work. Invoices shall be mailed to Commission's Contract Administrator at the following address: Riverside County Transportation Commission Attention: Accounts Payable P.O. 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 19.8 The total amount payable by Commission including the fixed fee shall not exceed twenty-six million three hundred twenty thousand and eleven dollars [$26,320,011 ]. 17336.03400\31233218.1 79 19.9 Salary increases shall be reimbursable if the new salary is within the salary range identified in the approved Cost Proposal and is approved by Commission's Contract Administrator. For personnel subject to prevailing wage rates as described in the California Labor Code, all salary increases, which are the direct result of changes in the prevailing wage rates are reimbursable. 19.10 Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by the Commission's Contract Administrator. 19.11 All subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain the above provisions. 20. Disputes. 20.1 Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this Agreement that is not disposed of by mutual agreement of the Parties shall be decided by a committee consisting of RCTC's Contract Administrator and the Director of Capital Projects, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by Consultant. 20.2 Not later than 30 days after completion of all Services under this Agreement, Consultant may request review by the Commission's Executive Director of unresolved claims or disputes, other than audit. The request for review will be submitted in writing. 20.3 Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the committee will excuse Consultant from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 21. Termination. 21.1 Commission reserves the right to terminate this Agreement for any or no reason upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice to Consultant with the reasons for termination stated in the notice. 21.2 Commission may terminate this Agreement with Consultant should Consultant fail to perform the covenants herein contained at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such termination, Commission may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by Commission. If Commission terminates this Agreement with Consultant, Commission shall pay Consultant the sum due to Consultant under this Agreement for Services completed and accepted prior to termination, unless the cost of completion to Commission exceeds the funds remaining in this Agreement. In such case, the overage shall be deducted from any sum due Consultant under this Agreement and the balance, if any, shall be paid to Consultant upon demand. 17336.03400\31233218.1 80 21.3 In addition to the above, payment upon termination shall include a prorated amount of profit, if applicable, but no amount shall be paid for anticipated profit on unperformed Services. Consultant shall provide documentation deemed adequate by Commission's Contract Administrator to show the Services actually completed by Consultant prior to the effective date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination. 21.4 Discontinuance of Services. Upon receipt of the written Notice of Termination, Consultant shall discontinue all affected Services as directed in the Notice or as otherwise provided herein, and deliver to the Commission all Documents and Data, as defined in this Agreement, as may have been prepared or accumulated by Consultant in performance of the Services, whether completed or in progress. 21.5 Effect of Termination for Cause. In addition to the above, Consultant shall be liable to the Commission for any reasonable additional costs incurred by the Commission to revise work for which the Commission has compensated Consultant under this Agreement, but which the Commission has determined in its sole discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole, to complete the Project because it did not meet the standard of care established herein. Termination of this Agreement for cause may be considered by the Commission in determining whether to enter into future agreements with Consultant. 21.6 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 21.7 Waivers. Consultant, in executing this Agreement, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages which may otherwise arise from the Commission's termination of this Agreement, for convenience or cause, as provided in this Section. 21.8 Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 22. Cost Principles and Administrative Requirements. 22.1 Consultant agrees that the Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31.000 et seq., shall be used to determine the cost allowability of individual items. 22.2 Consultant also agrees to comply with federal procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. 22.3 Any costs for which payment has been made to Consultant that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200 and 48 CFR, 17336.03400\31233218.1 81 Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31.000 et seq., are subject to repayment by Consultant to Commission. 22.4 All subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain the above provisions. 23. Retention of Records/Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with Public Contract Code 10115, et seq. and Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 21, Section 2500 et seq., when applicable and other matters connected with the performance of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code 8546.7; Consultant, subconsultants, and Commission shall maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to, the costs of administering this Agreement. All parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during this Agreement period and for three years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. The state, State Auditor, Commission, FHWA, or any duly authorized representative of the Federal Government shall have access to any books, records, and documents of Consultant and it's certified public accountants (CPA) work papers that are pertinent to this Agreement and indirect cost rates (ICR) for audit, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested. Subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain this provision. 23.1 Accounting System. Consultant and its subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate expenditures by line item for the Services. The accounting system of Consultant and its subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. 24. Audit Review Procedures. 24.1 Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this Agreement that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by Commission's Chief Financial Officer. 24.2 Not later than 30 days after issuance of the final audit report, Consultant may request a review by Commission's Chief Financial Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review shall be submitted in writing. 24.3 Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by Commission shall excuse Consultant from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 25. Subcontracting. 17336.03400\31233218.1 82 25.1 Nothing contained in this Agreement or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation between Commission and any subconsultant(s), and no subcontract shall relieve Consultant of its responsibilities and obligations hereunder. Consultant agrees to be as fully responsible to Commission for the acts and omissions of its subconsultant(s) and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Consultant. Consultant's obligation to pay its subconsultant(s) is an independent obligation from Commission's obligation to make payments to the Consultant. 25.2 Consultant shall perform the Services with resources available within its own organization and no portion of the Services shall be subcontracted without written authorization by Commission's Contract Administrator, except that, which is expressly identified in the approved Cost Proposal. 25.3 Consultant shall pay its subconsultants within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of each payment made to Consultant by Commission. 25.4 Any subcontract in excess of $25,000 entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all the provisions stipulated in this Agreement to be applicable to subconsultants. 25.5 Any substitution of subconsultant(s) must be approved in writing by Commission's Contract Administrator prior to the start of work by the subconsultant(s). 25.6 Exhibit "C" may also set forth the rates at which each subconsultant shall bill the Consultant for Services and that are subject to reimbursement by the Commission to Consultant. Additional Direct Costs, as defined in Exhibit "C" shall be the same for both the Consultant and all subconsultants, unless otherwise identified in Exhibit "C". The subconsultant rate schedules and cost proposals contained herein are for accounting purposes only. 26. Equipment Purchase 26.1 Prior authorization, in writing, by Commission's Contract Administrator shall be required before Consultant enters into any unbudgeted purchase order, or subcontract for supplies, equipment, or Consultant services. Consultant shall provide an evaluation of the necessity or desirability of incurring such costs. 26.2 For purchase of any item, service or consulting work not covered in Consultant's Cost Proposal and exceeding $5,000 prior authorization by Commission's Contract Administrator is required. Three competitive quotations must be submitted with the request for such purchase, or the absence of bidding must be adequately justified. 26.3 Any equipment purchased as a result of this Agreement is subject to the following: 17336.03400\31233218.1 83 Consultant shall maintain an inventory of all nonexpendable property. Nonexpendable property is defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more. If the purchased equipment needs replacement and is sold or traded in, Commission shall receive a proper refund or credit at the conclusion of this Agreement, or if this Agreement is terminated, Consultant may either keep the equipment and credit Commission in an amount equal to its fair market value, or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale, in accordance with established Commission procedures; and credit Commission in an amount equal to the sales price. If Consultant elects to keep the equipment, fair market value shall be determined at Consultant's expense, on the basis of a competent independent appraisal of such equipment. Appraisals shall be obtained from an appraiser mutually agreeable to Commission and Consultant. If Consultant determines to sell the equipment, the terms and conditions of such sale must be approved in advance by Commission. 2 CFR, Part 200 requires a credit to Federal funds when participating equipment with a fair market value greater than $5,000 is credited to the project. 26.4 All subcontracts in excess $25,000 shall contain the above provisions. 27. Labor Code Requirements. 27.1 Prevailing Wages. (a) Consultant shall comply with the State of California's General Prevailing Wage Rate requirements in accordance with California Labor Code, Section 1770, and all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the Services. (b) Any subcontract entered into as a result of this Agreement, if for more than $25,000 for public works construction or more than $15,000 for the alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance of public works, shall contain all of the provisions of this Section. (c) When prevailing wages apply to the Services described in the Scope of Services, transportation and subsistence costs shall be reimbursed at the minimum rates set by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) as outlined in the applicable Prevailing Wage Determination. See http://www.dir.ca.gov. (d) Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at commencement of this Agreement are on file at the Commission's offices. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 17336.03400\31233218.1 84 27.2 DIR Registration. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. If applicable, Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant's sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. 27.3 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 27.4 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant 17336.03400\31233218.1 85 28. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 28.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 28.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. 17336.03400\31233218.1 86 All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 28.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 28.4 Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 29. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of Commission's choosing), indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and 17336.03400\31233218.1 87 expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission, its directors, officials officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. If Consultant's obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant's performance as a "design professional" (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant's indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant's liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant's proportionate percentage of fault. Consultant's obligations as set forth in this Section shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 30. Insurance. 30.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this Section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this Section. 30.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (a) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office 17336.03400\31233218.1 88 Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (b) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Limits may be achieved by any combination of primary and excess or umbrella liability insurance; (2) Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Limits may be achieved by any combination of primary and excess or umbrella liability insurance; and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 30.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. For Consultant, such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must "pay on behalf of the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. Subconsultants of Consultant shall obtain such insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission may consider written requests to lower or dispense with the errors and omissions liability insurance requirement contained in this Section for certain subconsultants of Consultant, on a case -by -case basis, depending on the nature and scope of the Services to be provided by the subconsultant. Approval of such request shall be in writing, signed by the Commission's Contract Administrator. 30.4 Aircraft Liability Insurance. Prior to conducting any Services requiring use of aircraft, Consultant shall procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and maintained, aircraft liability insurance or equivalent form, with a single limit as shall be required by the Commission. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned aircraft and passengers, and shall name, or be endorsed to name, the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. 17336.03400\31233218.1 89 30.5 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (a) General Liability. (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent consultants coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to this Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's or Caltrans' insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (b) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (c) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. (0 Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. 17336.03400\31233218.1 90 (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (d) All Coverages. (i) forth hereunder. Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits set (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, Ca!trans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the 17336.03400\31233218.1 91 policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims - made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: 30.6 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self - insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 30.7 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 30.8 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 17336.03400\31233218.1 92 30.9 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this Section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. 30.10 Other Insurance. At its option, the Commission may require such additional coverage(s), limits and/or the reduction of deductibles or retentions it considers reasonable and prudent based upon risk factors that may directly or indirectly impact the Project. In retaining this option Commission does not warrant Consultant's insurance program to be adequate. Consultant shall have the right to purchase insurance in addition to the insurance required in this Section. 31. Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. As between Consultant and the construction contractors only, the construction contractors shall remain solely responsible for construction safety notwithstanding any safety obligations of Consultant at the jobsite. The foregoing sentence shall not impact nor in any way modify or alter Consultant's indemnity and defense obligations to the Commission, as set forth in Section 29 of this Agreement, not any of Consultant's duties or obligations set forth under this Agreement, including the attached exhibits. Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 591 of the Vehicle Code, the Commission has determined that the Project will contain areas that are open to public traffic. Consultant shall comply with all of the requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle Code. Consultant shall take all reasonably necessary precautions for safe operation of its vehicles and the protection of the traveling public from injury and damage from such vehicles. 32. Additional Work. Any work or activities that are in addition to, or otherwise outside of, the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall only be 17336.03400\31233218.1 93 performed pursuant to a separate agreement between the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission's Executive Director may make a change to the Agreement, other than a Cardinal Change. For purposes of this Agreement, a Cardinal Change is a change which is "outside the scope" of the Agreement; in other words, work which should not be regarded as having been fairly and reasonably within the contemplation of the parties when the Agreement was entered into. An example of a change which is not a Cardinal Change would be where, in a contract to construct a building there are many changes in the materials used, but the size and layout of the building remains the same. Cardinal Changes are not within the authority of this provision to order, and shall be processed by the Commission as "sole source" procurements according to applicable law, including the requirements of FTA Circular 4220.1 D, paragraph 9(f). (a) In addition to the changes authorized above, a modification which is signed by Consultant and the Commission's Executive Director, other than a Cardinal Change, may be made in order to: (1) make a negotiated equitable adjustment to the Agreement price, delivery schedule and other terms resulting from the issuance of a Change Order, (2) reflect definitive letter contracts, and (3) reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of this Agreement ("Bilateral Contract Modification"). (b) Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for any change, without written authorization from the Commission's Executive Director as set forth herein. In the event such a change authorization is not issued and signed by the Commission's Executive Director, Consultant shall not provide such change. 33. Prohibited Interests. 33.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 33.2 Consultant Conflict of Interest (Construction Management/ Administration). (a) Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with Commission that may have an impact upon the outcome of this Agreement, or any ensuing Commission construction project. Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this Agreement, or any ensuing Commission construction project, which will follow. (b) Consultant hereby certifies that it does not now have, nor shall it acquire any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of Services under this Agreement. 17336.03400\31233218.1 94 (c) Any subcontract in excess of $25,000 entered into as a result of this Agreement, shall contain all of the provisions of this Article. (d) Consultant hereby certifies that neither Consultant, nor any firm affiliated with Consultant will bid on any construction contract, or on any contract to provide construction inspection for any construction project resulting from this Agreement. An affiliated firm is one, which is subject to the control of the same persons through joint -ownership, or otherwise. (e) Except for subconsultants whose services are limited to providing surveying or materials testing information, no subconsultant who has provided design services in connection with this Agreement shall be eligible to bid on any construction contract, or on any contract to provide construction inspection for any construction project resulting from this Agreement. 33.3 Commission Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the Commission, during the term of his or her service with the Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 33.4 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 33.5 Covenant Against Contingent Fees. As required in connection with federal funding, the Consultant warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability pursuant to the terms herein, or at its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 33.6 Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. Consultant warrants that this Agreement was not obtained or secured through rebates kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any Commission employee. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right in its discretion; to 17336.03400\31233218.1 95 terminate this Agreement without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; or to deduct from the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration. 33.7 Covenant Against Expenditure of Commission, State or Federal Funds for Lobbying. The Consultant certifies that to the best of his/ her knowledge and belief no state, federal or local agency appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid by or on behalf of the Consultant to any person for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any state or federal agency; a Member of the State Legislature or United States Congress; an officer or employee of the Legislature or Congress; or any employee of a Member of the Legislature or Congress, in connection with the award of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, or the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (a) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid to any person for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency; a Member of Congress; an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress; in connection with this Agreement, the Consultant shall complete and submit the attached Exhibit "F", Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with the attached instructions. (b) The Consultant's certification provided in this Section is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this Agreement was entered into, and is a prerequisite for entering into this Agreement pursuant to Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code. Failure to comply with the restrictions on expenditures, or the disclosure and certification requirements set forth in Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code may result in a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. (c) The Consultant also agrees by signing this Agreement that he/she shall require that the language set forth in this Section be included in all Consultant subcontracts which exceed $100,000, and that all such subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly. 33.8 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement. 34. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities 17336.03400\31233218.1 96 related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 35. Right to Employ Other Consultants. Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 36. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 37. Disputes; Attorneys' Fees. 37.1 Prior to commencing any action hereunder, the Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising between them. The pendency of a dispute shall not excuse Consultant from full and timely performance of the Services. 37.2. If the Parties are unable to resolve a dispute after attempting in good faith to do so, the Parties may seek any other available remedy to resolve the dispute. If either Party commences an action against the other Party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing Party reasonable attorneys' fees and, all other costs of such actions. 38. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 39. Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 39.1 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: COMMISSION: HDR ENGINERING 2280 Market Street, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Kip Field Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty- eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the Party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 17336.03400\31233218.1 97 40. Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 41. Amendment or Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 42. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements or understandings. 43. Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 44. Provisions Applicable When Federal Department of Transportation Funds Are Involved. When funding for the Services provided by this Agreement are provided, in whole or in part, from the United States Department of Transportation, Consultant shall also fully and adequately comply with the provisions included in Exhibit "D" (Federal Department of Transportation Requirements and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) DBE program requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 45. Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 46. No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 47. Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 48. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 49. Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the 17336.03400\31233218.1 98 Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 50. Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 51. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 52. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 53. No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. [Signatures on following page] 17336.03400\31233218.1 99 SIGNATURE PAGE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FHWA FUNDING/ASSISTANCE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Anne Mayer Executive Director Approved as to Form: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel CONSULTANT By: Signature Name Title ATTEST: By: Its: * A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 17336.03400\31233218.1 100 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES [attached behind this page] 17336.03400\31233218.1 101 April 11, 2019 1-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT SOUTHERN EXTENSION PROJECT DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK TASKS This document describes the scope of work of the preliminary engineering and environmental services for the development of a Project Report (PR) and Environmental Document (ED) for the Interstate 15 (1-15) Express Lanes Project Southern Extension (ELPSE). This project will address the existing and future capacity needs of the corridor. The project limits extend from SR-74 (Central Avenue) IC in Lake Elsinore to Cajalco Road IC in Corona. The PR and ED will be prepared based on the Caltrans approved Project Study ' .rt (PSR), October 2007, the supplemental PSR, and the scope of services as o red in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Request for Prop :l Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Services for the 1-15 ELPSE, dated No ber 7, ' 18. The project will study two Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative. Tuild Alterna s include the addition of high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) / Express Lane (E . nes no mixed flow lane additions. All work will be performed using US Customary (Englis of measure. The level of effort is based on (1) (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (El IS/EA if acceptable based on impacts and months per the RFQ to complete , Build condition, and (4) the proje Policy Act (NEPA)/404 Integr the project schedule extends discussed with RCTC to next be prepared pursu. materials/guidelines ailable or ow of environmental analyse oceduro will be available within the Caltr. Sta► :rds. ration an Environmental Impact Report to down scope to an EIR/EA or urrence, (2) a schedule of up to 60 3' ' : uation of two build alternatives and the No essed pursuant to the National Environmental f Understanding (MOU) (2006). In the event ipated 60 months, scope and budget will be course of action. Environmental documentation will current laws, regulations, policies, reference at the time the work is undertaken. In addition, followed pursuant to the most current information The following assumptions .ve been made with regard to the proposed project. Where appropriate, assumptions have been included under the appropriate technical studies. General Assumptions: • Proposed project lane improvements are expected to extend along 1-15 from SR-74(Central Avenue) to Cajalco Road. • The proposed project will address two build alternatives as defined in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC): o No Build — Alternative 1 will not construct any improvements on the corridor. o Build Alternative — Alternative 2 is described by Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) for the 1-15 Corridor from the San Bernardino County Line to 1-215, October, 2007 and was followed by a Supplemental PSR in 2017 by RCTC. This alternative consists of adding one HOV lane in each direction now from SR-74 to Cajalco Road IC. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 1 of 52 Scope of Work 102 o Build Alternative — Alternative 3 is the addition of two Express Lanes (EL) in each direction from SR-74 to Cajalco Road IC and supporting toll facilities (i.e. signage / access points with related toll gantries / enforcement / maintenance). • The proposed improvements of I-15 ELPSE and 1-15 COP (if authorized under NTP #2) overlap just north of the Weirick Road IC. To provide consistency, primary Express Lane tasks have been assigned to the ELPSE for consistency in a final condition and recommendations of EL access points. • If authorized, the 1-15 COP will evaluate operational benefits on 1-15 between Weirick Road IC to as far north as Magnolia Avenue IC. Emphasis will be on the extension of the NB EL ingress beyond Bedford Wash with a potential auxiliary lane in the SB direction of travel to join the recently constructed Cajcalco Road IC auxiliary lane. • The 1-15 COP will utilize a CE/CE and follows the same deliverables outline in this scope that are necessary to support this level of document. The Pavement Survey task is the only additional item in this scope specifically conducted to support .e COP. • It is assumed that issues related to logical termini for E ' - will be coordinated with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and : It is expected this would likely occur at SR-74 and Cajalco Road (CETAP West) bube dated with the PDT early in PA/ED. • The NEPA document will be an EIS and thefforni nvironm- tal Quality Act (CEQA) document will be an EIR for the ELPSE. • Caltrans will be the lead agency for NEPA and Cam. RCTC will be a NEPA and CEQA responsible agency. • It is assumed that Caltrans District 8 is th - d final approval agency and that the Federal Highway Administration -WA) OT be involved in the review or approval of any of the environmental do en on, the exception of air quality conformity. The District 8 staff involved in t :pprov .roce- erein will be called the NEPA Assignment. • NEPA/404 integration proce • : - _ , ired. • A MAR is not deeme- a ce changes to ramps are not planned under the Project. Technical Assumptio • Focused protocol su y species are not included in this scope and cost, other than those specified under th. .tural Environment Study (NES) scope. If focused surveys are identified during the biological field reconnaissance, then this will be communicated to RCTC and Caltrans and a scope and cost for this work will be provided. • No Section 7 or Section 10 consultation or California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 or 2080.1 consultation will be required, other than the consistency determination and Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) required under the MSHCP. • Permit applications and processing (Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 404 permit, and Section 1602 Streambed Alternation Agreement) are not included in this scope of work because permits would be obtained during the final design. Initial coordination efforts with appropriate resource agencies on permits are included as part of this environmental document preparation process. • A Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) for the corridor (SR-74 IC to Cajalco Road IC) will be prepared per current Caltrans and FHWA guidelines. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 2 of 52 Scope of Work 103 " T h e V I A w i l l b e a s t a n d - a l o n e d o c u m e n t a n d w i l l b e u s e d a s a t e c h n i c a l a p p e n d i x t o t h e p r o j e c t E I R / E I S . " O n l y t w o p r o j e c t b u i l d a l t e r n a t i v e s w i l l b e e v a l u a t e d d u r i n g t h e a s s e s s m e n t . " T h e r e w i l l n o t b e a f l y o v e r o r d r o p r a m p n e t w o r k s y s t e m a t t h e v a r i o u s O C / U C / i n t e r c h a n g e s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s c o p e . " A e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y ( g e o r e f e r e n c e d w i t h e x i s t i n g t o p o g r a p h y ) a t a s c a l e s u i t a b l e f o r p r e p a r a t i o n o f p r o j e c t m a p p i n g , f i g u r e s , a n d a n a l y s i s w i l l b e p r o v i d e d ( 1 i n c h = 5 0 f e e t s c a l e m i n i m u m , w i t h a n o u t s i d e r a n g e o f 2 , 0 0 0 f e e t t o t h e e a s t a n d w e s t o f 1 - 1 5 s h o w n a n d a n y o t h e r a r e a s o f i m p r o v e m e n t ) . P i x e l s i z e s h a l l b e n o m o r e t h a n 0 . 2 5 f o o t a n d t h e i m a g e s h a l l b e o r t h o r e c t i f i e d . N e w a e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y a n d m a p p i n g w i l l b e p r o v i d e d b y t h i s t e a m f o r t h e 1 - 1 5 E L P S E f r o m R R C a n y o n R o a d I C t o H i d d e n V a l l e y P a r k w a y I C t o m o r e t h a n c o v e r t h e p l a n n e d i m p r o v e m e n t s f o r c o n n e c t i v i t y t o t h e 1 - 1 5 a n d S R - 9 1 E x p r e s s L a n e N e t w o r k s . " A m a s t e r l a n d s c a p e p l a n i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s c o p e a n d c o s t , h o w e v e r , a p r o j e c t l a n d s c a p e p a l e t t e w i l l b e p r o v i d e d f o r t h e c o r r i d o r b a s e d o n . v i o u s w o r k a s s o c i a t e d w i t h I - 1 5 E L P a l o n g w i t h g e n e r a l r u l e s f o r p l a n t i n g p l a c e m e n t . . l i f o r n i a R e g i s t e r e d L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t ( R L A ) w i l l r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v e t h e V I A , p e r F H i d e l i n e s . " W e w i l l c o o r d i n a t e w i t h a d j a c e n t p r o j e c t s 1 - 1 5 E a j a l c " ' o a d I C , S R - 7 4 I C ( C e n t r a l A v e n u e ) , a n d m i s c e l l a n e o u s i n t e r c h a n g e p r o j e c t s n g 1 - 1 5 t h a - a r i s e w i t h t h e C o r o n a , L a k e E l s i n o r e , C a l t r a n s , R C T C , o r R C T D . " F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s c o p e o f w o r k , i t i s a s s a t t h e c u r r e n t R I V T A M ( 2 0 1 6 u p d a t e w i t h 2 0 1 2 b a s e y e a r a n d 2 0 4 0 f u t u r e y e a t r a f f i c I w i l l b e u s e d f o r t h e p r o j e c t . O n l y t h o s e t a s k s s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i o t h e r e f f o r t o r t a s k s a r e a s s u m e d . i m p l i ( C a l t r a n s ) W o r k B r e a k d o w n S t r u , �� - l e a s o u t l i n e d i n t h i s s c o p e o f w o r k . 1 0 0 P R O J E C T M A N c a t a r e a s s u m e d t o b e i n c l u d e d . N o e f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 1 . 1 ( W B S ) i s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e p r o j e c t t a s k s 1 0 0 . 1 0 P r o j e c t M a n - m e n t E " m p o n e n t T h i s t a s k i n c l u d e s m a n a g : e n t o f t h e P A N E D c o m p o n e n t , f r o m i n i t i a t i o n t h r o u g h c o m p l e t i o n . T h e s e r v i c e . r o v ' - " i n c l u d e t h e i n i t i a t i o n , p l a n n i n g , e x e c u t i o n , c o n t r o l , a n d c l o s e o u t o f t h e P A N E D c o m W e w i l l p r o v i d e o v e r a l l p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t , c o o r d i n a t i o n , a n d s u p e r v i s i o n o f p r o j e c t s t a f f a n d s u b c o n s u l t a n t s t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e w o r k i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s c o p e a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R C T C . I n m e e t i n g s w i t h C a l t r a n s a n d o t h e r l o c a l a g e n c i e s , w e w o u l d a c t a s a g e n t s o f R C T C , c o m m u n i c a t i n g t h e n e e d s a n d i n t e n t i o n s o f R C T C t o t h e o t h e r a g e n c i e s . T h i s s t r a t e g y o f p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t d e p e n d s o n c l e a r a n d f r e q u e n t c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h R C T C , w h i c h w e w i l l a c c o m p l i s h t h r o u g h t h e f o l l o w i n g t a s k s . 1 0 0 . 1 0 . 0 5 P A / E D C o m p o n e n t I n i t i a t i o n a n d P l a n n i n g T h e P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n w i l l b e c r e a t e d u n d e r t h i s a c t i v i t y . P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n a r e l i s t e d b e l o w : C r e a t e w o r k p l a n f o r t h e P A / E D c o m p o n e n t w h i c h i n c l u d e s s c h e d u l e e l e m e n t s . T h e s p e c i f i c e l e m e n t s o f t h e t h e p r o j e c t s s c o p e , c o s t , a n d R C T C : 1 - 1 5 E x p r e s s L a n e s P r o j e c t S o u t h e r n E x t e n s i o n P a g e 3 o f 5 2 S c o p e o f W o r k 1 0 4 Create Quality Management Plan for the PA/ED component. Create Communication Management Plan for the PA/ED component. Create Risk Management Plan for the PA/ED component. Deliverable: Project Management Plan 100.10.10 Project Management PA/ED Execution and Control We will provide overall project management, coordination, and supervision of our project staff and subconsultants to complete the scope of the work in accordance with the contract and requirements of RCTC. We will assimilate the project goals and perspective of our client into our Management Plan and act on their behalf to attain their goals. In meetings with Ca!trans and other local agencies, we would act as agents of RCTC communicating the needs and intentions of RCTC to the other agencies. We will have clear a frequent communication with RCTC which we will accomplish through face-to-face meeting- lephone consultations, e-mail and written progress reports. The objective is to develop . tablish all of the management tools and documents to implement RCTC's goals an. e tract scope. This will be implemented through preparation of a Project Manager t Plan a e following subtasks. 100.10.10.1 Project Scheduling Prepare a Microsoft Project schedule that will be upd Deliverables: Project Schedule a monthly basis. 100.10.10.2 Project Guide/Communication ' ' is anagement Plan/Project Fact Sheet We will develop project mana the project's onset. This inclu Plan, and update the existi1-1 annually. Public Communic manager and will sery bridge the gap between maintain consensus among umented in the Project Management Plan at er, Communications Plan, Risk Management ect Fact Sheet with review of information occurring semi- 1 be developed in close coordination with RCTC project r all public outreach activities. This plan will also be used to cal issues and the public and elected officials to build and akeholders. 1. Organize and attend three (3) scoping meetings or public workshops as required by the selected environmental document to obtain input and feedback for preparation of roadway improvement alternatives within the project area. We are proposing two workshops — one for the southern portion of the project, near Lake Elsinore, and one for the north portion of the project, near Corona. The third set of meetings/workshops will occur with regularly reoccurring meetings RCTC holds with Temecula Valley residents. These workshops will assist RCTC and the project team to better understand the public concerns and will provide the team with an opportunity to address these concerns as the project moves forward. 2. Identify stakeholders, using the existing MIS database and the SR-91 CIP, 1-15 ELP and any RCTC stakeholder data to develop a comprehensive list of project stakeholders. Additionally, the PDT will determine any additional stakeholders and community / focus groups that are affected by the project. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 4 of 52 Scope of Work 105 3. Develop clear and thematic presentations, tailored with specific messages, and provide them on an ongoing basis to appropriate individuals and organizations. The intent of these presentations is to educate the public and bring out major issues early in the process so that the project team can address these challenges in a timely manner. These presentations will be available in English with translation to Spanish if required. 4. Collateral materials — prepare brochures, text materials, agendas, boards, and PowerPoint presentations to support public meetings, public hearing, and stakeholder meetings. Handout materials can be made available in both English and Spanish. 5. Create electronic media that can be uploaded to RCTC's 1-15 ELPSE project web site. 6. Administer two (2) public hearings, which will be set up as part of circulation of the Draft Environmental Document. A third meeting with the Temecula Valley residents may be added if deemed necessary by RCTC. This would occur at a regularly reoccurring meeting already being held by RCTC if within the public re iew period for the ELPSE. Risk Management Plan will enable the project team to i• ify, analyze and manage risks as they arise and change through the life of a proj= allows potential obstacles to successful project delivery to be identified and de ith : , thereby minimizing their impact on project cost, scope, schedule, and qual Appropria managing risks will help the Department meet its project delivery co - ent and pro, .e project stakeholders better information on which to make project de The Risk Management Plan will include risk response strategy, monitoring, and c developed at the beginning of the proje progresses, the Risk Managemt Plan throughout the project develop ces major project milestones. Project Fact Sheet will necessary for stakeh updates to the ba map, major mile cation, analysis, an appropriate risk Management Plan will be initially s ange and emerge as the project e tinually managed and re-evaluated t a minimum, the plan shall be re -assessed at nnually with RCTC and updated if deemed I be posted on the project website. It will include periodic urpose, project description/scope statement, location tes, estimated cost and project contacts. Deliverables: Public C. unica s Plan, Risk Management Plan, and a Project Fact Sheet. 100.10.10.3 Monthly Progr ' eports/Invoices We will prepare a Progress Report and Invoice on a monthly basis which will reflect progress through the previous month. The Progress Report will include spreadsheets showing hours expended by roll -up tasks activities undertaken during the previous month. The progress report will summarize work completed during this period, upcoming work, and any issues to address that affect scope, schedule, progress, or risks related to PA/ED. Deliverables: Monthly Progress Reports/Invoices. 100.10.10.4 Monthly PDT Meetings (60) We will hold monthly PDT meetings for the project duration, with an anticipated total of sixty (60) meetings. RCTC, Caltrans, and relevant stakeholders (as determined by RCTC and Caltrans) will be invited. The purpose of the PDT meetings will be to discuss project status, convey information, receive data, discuss issues, coordinate with affected agencies, submit deliverables, receive comments, and discuss tasks to be worked on in the next 30-60 days. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 5 of 52 Scope of Work 106 100.10.10.4.1 PDT Agenda and Meeting Minutes We will prepare an agenda for each meeting to be distributed no less than 72 hours before the meeting. We will also prepare meeting minutes that will be sent to RCTC for review and approval no more than five (5) working days after the meeting. The agenda will include the look ahead schedule. Deliverables: PDT Meeting Agendas and Minutes 100.10.10.5 Bi-Monthly "Trend" Meetings (120) Progress meetings will be held with RCTC, monthly with an anticipated total of one -hundred - twenty (120) Trend meetings. The purpose of Trend meetings will be to provide an opportunity to discuss coordination activities with project participants in addition to status of the work and issues to be resolved. We will also refine the agenda for the monthly PDT meetings. In addition, our subconsultants' representative shall attend these meetings as requested. It is anticipated that one -hundred (100) meetings will be attended by key subcon tants (Environmental / Public Information). 100.10.10.5.1 Trend Meeting Agenda and Meeting Min We will prepare an agenda for each meeting to be di meetings. We will also prepare meeting minutes approval no more than five (5) working days after t Deliverables: Trend meeting agendas and minutes 100.10.10.6 Quality Assurance (QA) Progr We will prepare and maintain a qual of the services under this Agree plans, studies, estimates, and Agreement. Deliverables: Quality A 100.10.10.8 Design, The RCTC web page Projects and Planning. collateral for posting on th uted no 1- han 72 hours before the wil be sent RCTC for review and Ian tYTat will be in effect during performance lity assurance program will address reports, rables and documents submitted under the ister a Public Outreach Web Page s a link for electronic media for the project, www.rctc.org — osal hours reflect the development of an information -based TC web and will leverage "push" email notification of public hearings and workshops. The web page will be updated with data provided to RCTC periodically to reflect the current Project information. Deliverables: Periodic Electronic Media Updates for use on the RCTC Project Web Page 100.10.10.9 Electronic Document Control (ProjectWise) We will use ProjectWise for document control to promote real-time collaboration and information sharing in a secure project file storage environment. The site will be password protected with firewalls to preserve security and project team members will have access via a standard web browser and Internet connection. RCTC and select team members will have access to review and share reports, drawings, exhibits, and other electronic files. Deliverables: ProjectWise — file storage database RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 6 of 52 Scope of Work 107 100.10.15 Project Management PA/ED Close -Out We will perform the activities to close out the project and provide hard copy reports for RCTC to retain. It is assumed that these activities would be limited to final project documentation preservation activities related to PANED. They include archiving report and technical study files from the team, memos, letters, other key agency correspondence and deliverables in chronological order. Deliverables: PANED Close -Out Checklist 160 PERFORM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES AND DRAFT PROJECT REPORT 160.05 Update Project Information This activity includes review of the information assembled a eveloped during the previous phases of work, as well as a preliminary assessment of additional information may be required during the project report and environmental docu t lopment. We will collect and review existing data from s• es includingaltrans Districts 8 and Headquarters; RCTC; Cities of Corona, Lake nore d Riverside County; and water resource agencies. These data will include geotech ormation, survey monuments, traffic data, as-builts, and other studies and report ..plicabl- the corridor. In addition, we will review the available repo with SR-91. The purpose of this rev'- will advance signing, as well as to be iliar Field reviews will be performe 160.05.99 Lessons Le We will conduct one be further develope • Provide Alternative recommendations. plans along 1-15 and its connection eter ine the locations for tolling points and any issues or concerns. s it pertains to each specialty disciplines. tive Cross Section Workshop ) day to discuss roadway cross section alternatives to e scope of the work shall include the following: ction Workshop memo to document the findings and • Provide the following tech ical team members for the following disciplines to coordinate with RCTC staff including 1-15 ELP and SR-91 CIP Team Members: o Highway design o Traffic forecasts o Traffic operations o Toll facility design o Structural design o Pavement design o Drainage / Water Quality design o Environmental planning o Public Outreach RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 7 of 52 Scope of Work 108 Deliverables: Alternative Cross Section Workshop Memo 160.10 Engineering Studies This activity includes developing in more detail or updating those studies initiated during the PID. It also includes additional engineering studies required during the PANED phase of the project. These studies are described below. 160.10.10 Traffic Forecasts/Modeling Traffic forecasts will be prepared through the application of the SCAG, RIVTAM, or RIVCOM Transportation Analysis Model. To provide a level of consistency between the forecasts for the SR-91 corridor and the 1-15 corridor, final, post -processed traffic volumes from 2019 traffic counts will occur for this segment of I-15 and the interchanges between Hidden Valley Parkway and Main Street (Lake Elsinore) will be obtained through traffic counts. The volumes entering and exiting the freeway mainline and EL facility at Hidden Valley Parkway will be the northern most point for traffic counts for the remainder of the 1-15 corrido tending south to Main Street in Lake Elsinore. Existing a.m. and p.m. peak -period volume counts are r fifty (50) interchange ramps, and 24-hour machine co up to one -hundred five (105) roadway segments. st obtained from Caltrans count stations in the stu overpasses at each end of the study corridor. Field will be performed throughout the study are. - •ather such as lane configurations, intersection co will be supplemented by review of as-buil jurisdictions, as well as available ae ' otog Traffic forecasts will be develop ingress/egress point in the stu consultation with RCTC. The mo consistent with the fina Caltrans will provide 2020 modeled volum year. INRIX speed data characteristics) and Street ed to be collected at up to will be cted for three (3) days at in freeway inline volumes will be verified for mainline conditions at naissance of roadway characteristics on circulation system characteristics hasing. The field reconnaissance liable from Caltrans and the local terchange, system interchange, and EL lane gress point locations will be determined in hway ne work will be reviewed to confirm that it is d Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). RCTC and ga . g the methodology used to post -process raw 2019 or ated 2029 opening year of the project and a 2049 design rate the operations model and understand corridor a origin -destination data (to understand travel patterns, address potential weaving iss►es with access/egress locations to the express lanes, and understand use of parallel facilities along the corridor). Traffic forecasts will be developed for each mainline segment, and ramp, for the traffic analysis. Average daily traffic (ADT), as well as a.m. and p.m. peak -hour volumes will be generated for the no build and two build alternatives. Separate traffic forecasts will be prepared for the 2029 opening year and 2049 design year for each alternative which will be confirmed with Caltrans and project programming documents. Traffic forecasts for the project opening year (2029) will be developed in a similar manner as those for 2049. Zonal socioeconomic data (SED) inputs for the project area will be developed in consultation with RCTC and local agencies through review of existing and future forecast SED and recent development trends in the area. The project opening year highway network will be developed in consultation with local jurisdictions' staffs, based on each jurisdiction's Capital Improvement Plans and committed projects identified in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 8 of 52 Scope of Work 109 The study area for the traffic forecasts along the 1-15 Corridor and the transportation analysis will be as follows: • 1-15 mainline and proposed HOV/EL facility from the Main Street in Lake Elsinore to SR-91 in Corona (approximately 20 miles of freeway mainline) • All local interchanges between SR-91 and Main Street, SR-74(Central Avenue), Nichols Road, Lake Street, Indian Truck Trail Road, Temescal Canyon Road, Weirick Road, Cajalco Road / CETAP West, El Cerrito Road, Ontario Avenue, Magnolia Avenue) • 1 system interchange (SR-91), south facing ramp connectors and express lanes • 50 ramps at each local interchange (ramp termini, plus one in each direction), as well as 10 other discretionary locations if required to analyze project impacts as identified during course of study • 105 local roadway segments to include those local roads anticipated for noise model development and modeling purposes Deliverables: Traffic Methodology Memo — will define corridor iwork mptions as a basis for the volumes development and operational analysi raft and Fi Traffic Forecasts — Volumes Development R�Qrt,�Faft and Final) 160.10.15 Geometric Plans for Project Al Geometric layout plans will be prepared at plans). Lane shoulder and buffer widths shown. Retaining wall and sou Daylight limits of standard 2:1 0 Geometric plan development fo • Alternative 1 — No B • Alternative 2 — C • Alternative 3 — 2- pproximately 1 "= 100' for reduced Right-of-way requirements will be s will be shown with approximate heights. delineated for outside widening. rt will include the following three alternatives: Alternative (add one HOV lane in each direction) in each direction Profiles/superelevation difor the PR alternatives will be provided for ramps and connectors for the two build : ternatives. Profiles will also be provided for mainline widening using aerial topographic mapping and record drawing information. Conceptual interchange analysis will be completed for each local interchange affected by the outside widening of the 1-15 mainline. The project is divided into four separate phases, each of which is designated for a specific number of lanes and specific lane types for each alternative. The project limits of each phase are as follows: • NTP #1: 1-15 ELPSE - SR-74 to Cajalco Road • NTP #2: 1-15 COP - Weirick Road to Magnolia Avenue Alternatives will also include development of EL ingress and egress points at specific locations to be determined within the 1-15 corridor. For the purposes of this proposal, we estimate a maximum of five (5) ingress/egress locations will be adequate to study the ELPSE. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 9 of 52 Scope of Work 110 We will provide input on express lane configuration and review plans for consistency with tolling concepts and for suitability for toll operations. Deliverables: Geometric plans for two (2) build alternatives at 1 "=50' scale. Project length is 15 miles and the total number of sheets for Alternative 1 and 2 are estimated at 70 layout sheets for each alternative for a Project Report Plan Sheet Set including Layouts / Existing Utilities / Grading-Drainage-R/W consisting of 210 cut plan view sheets and up to 40 typical section sheets for each build alternative included the Project Report plus the addition of the Advance Planning Study (APS) general plans sheets. 160.10.16 Prepare Construction Staging Concept Plans We will prepare concept stage construction schematic for each of the two build alternatives. The construction staging concept schematic will depict the overall sequencing of construction for each alternative to balance the construction production, advance construction area signage for the temporary footprint determinations, traffic delay impact, laydo n areas, material / equipment staging areas and related cost such as Temporary Constructio► .sements (TCE) if beyond the State or Public R/W. A summary providing a brief comparis► advantages and challenges of the alternatives from the perspective of construction stag wi - included. The construction staging concept plans will show where the constr n is ocing and where traffic is maintained during construction (i.e., identify open nes of trave •d general construction areas). The construction staging concept plans b ally ist of an overview. Details will be included when further clarification is needed to i1 complex aspects of the plan. The concept stage construction plans (25 sheet ill be p red at 1" = 200' scale (approximately 1" = 400' for reduced plans). Assumptions: Scope is based on develop' alternative. The 1-15 Corridor will . into this point it should be assumed ther: ill be Deliverables: Concept stage c 160.10.20 Value Engi We will conduct a V study and review effo not deemed adequate t this scope item in place of s on staging concept plans for each aximum of 2 distinct construction stages. At e D-B construction contract for the ELPSE. r two (2) alternatives (maximum). g () Workshop over no more than three (3) days for the us VA Study. If the previously approved VA Study (2014) is ith PA/ED, a three day VA Study will be completed under Workshop. The scope of the work shall include the following: • Provide a qualified, independent VE team leader to lead a VE workshop. • Provide VE workshop memo to document the findings and recommendations. • Provide the following technical team members for the following disciplines: o Highway design o Traffic design o Traffic operations o Toll facility design o Structural design o Pavement design o Drainage / Water Quality design o Environmental planning o Construction Management RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 10 of 52 Scope of Work 111 o Other team members to be provided by stakeholder agencies Deliverables: Draft and Final VE Workshop Memo or VA Memo 160.10.25 Hydraulics/Hydrology Studies Upon review of the available "as-builts" plans for existing culverts, bridges, channel facilities, and previous hydrology and hydraulic (H&H) reports within the project limits, a preliminary hydrology study will be performed based on acreage determinations tributary to the proposed drainage systems shown on the proposed Geometric Plans for the project prepared under WBS 160.10.15. The analysis will be based on the Caltrans drainage criteria and Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) hydrology manual. A qualitative assessment will be made for existing drainage systems to assess potential deficiencies, possible upsizing, and relocation requirements. A detailed hydraulic analysis is not included in the scope of work at this time. Deliverables: Preliminary On -Site Hydrology Study (Draft & F 160.10.26 Drainage Concept Plans Existing freeway drainage systems will be plotte► •n drainag- out sheets based on information available on record drawings from ans. •n-site • ainage facilities for the widening will be evaluated and identified in a qualit. - ner for the selected alternative. We will identify critical locations to determine the tent of potential on -site drainage improvements/modifications including drai lets sumps, super elevation reversal points, and on/off ramps), and develop - - s tems to accommodate the inlet locations. Estimates of design dischar•es will based on the Preliminary Hydrology Study completed in WBS item 160 - The slues will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing facilities an -stim - pr: inary sizing of the proposed drainage systems/modifications within t •roj- • capacity of existing storm drain systems for the PA/ED phase will be estimat_ ng nor .I depth calculations to determine if the existing facilities have adequate _ _ to . ommodate increases in storm water runoff. Conceptual drainage plans will b- epare• . s of 1" = 50 ft for the project length. No profiles sheets will be provided. Deliverables: Drainage • cep . ns (Layout only, 70 sheets) 2 alternatives at 1 "=50 ft scale. 160.10.27 Storm Water Data eport In accordance with the Project Planning and Design Guide dated July 2017, a Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) shall be prepared. The SWDR will include the following information: Project description, identification of the receiving water bodies, geotechnical information, design pollution prevention and post -construction BMPs proposed, costs, and checklists. The SWDR will be signed by the Project Engineer and then submitted to Caltrans for review and approval by the District/Regional Design Storm Water Coordinator, the designated Landscape Representative, the designated Maintenance Representative, and final approval by the Project Manager to verify that storm water quality design issues have been addressed, and that the data are complete, current, and accurate. The SWDR will be prepared and revised at the Draft and Final PR phases. Deliverables: Storm Water Data Report (long form) for 2 build alternatives (maximum) RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 11 of 52 Scope of Work 112 160.10.35 & 160.10.36 Traffic Operational Analysis We will analyze the study locations under AM and PM peak hour conditions using traffic simulation (either VISSIM or TransModeler) software. The simulation analysis will model the effects of grade, vehicle type, acceleration and deceleration characteristics, and driver behavior parameters and their effect on merge/diverge/weave activities more accurately than the macroscopic equations provided by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The simulation model will be calibrated and validated to the existing operating conditions observed in the field measured through the GPS travel time runs and with the use of INRX and Streetlight Data obtained for this effort. Using the microsimuation models, we will determine on -ramp merge, off -ramp diverge, basic freeway mainline and weaving section density and level of service consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual — 6th edition Volume 2 — Uninterrupted Flows using a freeway analysis tool that we developed in-house to work directly with microsimulatio .del output data. Key performance metrics, such as average travel speed b : t and corridor, average travel time by segment and corridor, vehicle hours of de , vehic •urs of travel, density, and level of service will be summarized. The traffic simul, .n results wil eased on a statistically valid set of multiple runs using different random v. see• .sing FH A Microsimulation Guidelines and/or other available state guidance. Traffic operations analysis will be conducte conditions for the analysis scenarios identifie alternatives. In addition to completing the tr report on the benefits to the Ioc using the results of the tr Lastly, for a specifie Miles Traveled by Spe Quality Analysis and for a ening year, and design year respective projects and sment for the freeway system, we will also for parallel routes to 1-15 with the project orecasting model and volume -to -capacity assessment. vel . -mand forecasting model, we will prepare Vehicle ify the regional benefits of the project and use in the Air t of SB 743 requirements. We will also utilize a proprietary tool developed in-house to test the sensitivity of the analysis results utilizing the microsimulation tool. Specifically, this tool is an automated process where different input parameters are modified to "proof' the analysis results. For example, we could modify traffic volumes by plus or minus 5%, 10%, or 20% to determine how that would affect operations. Alternatively, we could test autonomous vehicle fleet penetration percentages as part of this tool. Although we do not anticipate including these results in the TOAR, we believe it will provide valuable information to RCTC and the project team to ensure that the project is designed with a high level of confidence. Draft and Final TOAR We will prepare the Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) summarizing the results and findings. We will prepare an Initial Draft TOAR to submit to Caltrans and other PDT members for two rounds of review and comments. We will submit the Final Draft TOAR for a second RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 12 of 52 Scope of Work 113 review and the Final TOAR will be submitted in both hard copy and electronic format. It is anticipated that the TOAR will be incorporated into the Project Approval Report and Environmental Document by others. General Purpose & HOV Lane Assessment As part of this effort, we will evaluate a general-purpose lane concept. To complete this assessment, we will develop new project forecasts (for the horizons noted above) and will complete the operations assessment (using the same methodologies noted above) for this concept. This task assumes that the analysis will be completed to inform RCTC and the project team but will not be included in our official deliverables for the project. As such, we will summarize the results in memorandum format and provide that information to RCTC for informational purposes. The HOV Lane Validation Memo will determine the benefits of a single lane HOV facility including performance measures such: Daily A i 'M Peak Period VMT / Daily AM/PM Peak Period VHT / AM/PM Peak Period VHD / Daily VHT at LOS E & F / Hours the HOV Lane experiences degr Operational Failure at the Termini of the HOV Facility. Deliverables: Initial Draft TOAR, Final Draft TOAR, and Final TOAR General Purpose Lane & HOV Lane Validati 160.10.40 Updated Right -of -Way hee We will prepare Right -of -Way ' . a S ets i accordance with the Caltrans Right of Way Manual (based on the most re(2) build alternatives including the following information: • ROW requirement • es e anent & temporary) • Parcel data utilit • Facility conflicts; ra -d facili onflicts • Identification of previo .entified hazardous materials • Displacement requiremen • Borrow or disposal sites required • Potential relinquishments and/or abandonments • Existing and/or potential airspace sites • Estimated right-of-way schedule and lead time M Peak Period Congested on an average day / Deliverables: Right -of -Way Data Sheets 160.10.41 Determine Right -of -Way Requirements We will determine right-of-way requirements for two (2) build alternatives. Right-of-way requirements will be established in Microstation format and tabulated in an Excel spreadsheet with parcel number identification and area of acquisition required. Deliverables: Tabulated Right -of -Way Requirements RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 13 of 52 Scope of Work 114 160.10.45 Utility Locations Determined for Preliminary Engineering We will research and obtain existing utility record drawings and establish a utility contact list. Contacts will be made with each utility company affected and a preliminary determination of relocation requirements will be made. Conceptual relocation alignments will be shown on the utility base maps. Prior rights determination is not included in this work program. Using the record drawings obtained from the utility search, we will map existing utilities within the project area from Main Street to Magnolia Avenue contained in State R/W and adjacent frontage roads in County or City R/W. Potholing of existing utilities is not included in the work program. A utility matrix will be used to document no conflict, relocations, or protection requirements for owning agencies, the size of the utility, and existing facility material as available from record maps to develop costs estimates used in the R/W Data Sheet and Project Report. Deliverables: Utility record drawings, owner contact list an !sting utility mapping; Utility conflict matrix, Photo Log, and Conceptual Utility Relocation • rotection Cost Estimates 160.10.70 Traffic Studies A traffic study will be prepared to document the tra The study will include existing conditions, analysi study will be submitted under separate cover as a used as the basis to support other engineer! • and en quality and noise impacts, and it will b document. An administrative draft will be p RCTC, Caltrans and specific tech • . I tea incorporated, and a second draft ,�,•� • istn members. The traffic study will describe th analysis methodologies detailed. The result interchanges, and appropriate. The methodology for the following: operations a sis of the 1-15 corridor. gies, and conclusions. The traffic I report. This technical report will be mental technical studies, such as air d appendix to the environmental mitted electronically for review by s. Responses to comments will be electronically to the same reviewing team or ing procedure used in Task 160.10.10 and the 60.10.35. All assumptions of the analyses will be clearly nal analyses of the mainline, HOV/EL facilities, tion will be presented, using tables and graphics as tion of the traffic analysis will be described, including the • Definition of alternatives • Travel demand modeling process • Study area • Traffic forecasts • Capacity analysis • Level of Service standards • Recommended improvements No project conditions and two build alternatives for the 1-15 corridor will be evaluated. Traffic analysis will include collision analysis, mainline analysis, and ramp merge -diverge analysis. The following components of the circulation system will be evaluated: RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 14 of 52 Scope of Work 115 " S y s t e m I n t e r c h a n g e A M a n d P M p e a k h o u r t r a f f i c f o r e c a s t s w i l l b e p r e p a r e d f o r t h e I - 1 5 s y s t e m i n t e r c h a n g e a t S R - 9 1 . T r a f f i c f o r e c a s t s f o r a l l m a i n l i n e s e g m e n t s a n d r a m p s i n t h e i n t e r c h a n g e w i l l b e i n c l u d e d . S y s t e m i n t e r c h a n g e r a m p s w i l l b e e v a l u a t e d u s i n g H C M c o n s i s t e n t p r o c e d u r e s f o r " m a j o r m e r g e s " o r " m a j o r d i v e r g e s " a s a p p r o p r i a t e . " F r e e w a y M a i n l i n e D i r e c t i o n a l A M a n d P M p e a k h o u r t r a f f i c f o r e c a s t s w i l l b e p r e p a r e d f o r t h e 1 - 1 5 m a i n l i n e , t h e H O V / E L f a c i l i t y , a n d a n y c o l l e c t o r - d i s t r i b u t o r r o a d w a y s . F r e e w a y m a i n l i n e s e g m e n t s w i l l b e e v a l u a t e d u s i n g H C M c o n s i s t e n t p r o c e d u r e s f o r " m a j o r m e r g e s " o r " m a j o r d i v e r g e s " a s a p p r o p r i a t e . " L o c a l I n t e r c h a n g e s A M a n d P M p e a k h o u r t r a f f i c f o r e c a s t s w i l l b e p r e p a r e d f o r e n t r y a n d e x i t r a m p s a t u p t o 1 2 l o c a l i n t e r c h a n g e s . L o c a l i n t e r c h a n g e r a m p s w i l l b e e v a l u a t e d u s i n g H C M c o n s i s t e n t p r o c e d u r e s f o r m e r g e s , d i v e r g e s , o r w e a v i n g s e g m e n t s , a s a p p r o p r i a t e . W e w i l l w o r k w i t h C a l t r a n s , R C T C , a n d t h e l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s t o e s t a b l i s h a n a l y s i s p r o c e d u r e s a n d l e v e l o f s e r v i c e s t a n d a r d s f o r e a c h f a c i l i t y t y p e . T h e e c a s e f o r l a n e g e o m e t r y a s s u m p t i o n s w i l l c o n s i s t o f t h e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s p l u s a n m m i t t e d i m p r o v e m e n t s o n l y . W h e r e v e r t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d i s n o t m e t , i m p r o v e m e n g i e s w i l l b e r e c o m m e n d e d . T o t h e e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , t h e G e n e r a l P l a n s o f e a c h j u r i s d i c t i . i l l f t h e b a s i s f o r r e c o m m e n d e d i m p r o v e m e n t s . D e l i v e r a b l e s : T r a f f i c t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t . 1 6 0 . 1 0 . 8 0 U p d a t e d G e o t e c h n i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n & L C F i n d i n g s o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , p r e l i m i n a r y c o n s i g n , p o t e n t i a l i m p a c t s , a n d g e n e r a l d e s i g n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s A + v a n c e P l a n n i n g S t u d i e s a n d T y p e S e l e c t i o n ) w i l l b e d o c u m e n t e d i n t w . " e s o - s . P r e l i m i n a r y G e o t e c h n i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n R e p o r t t h a t a d d r e s s e s c u t s , f i l l - . n g I s , n o i s e b a r r i e r s , o v e r h e a d s i g n s , d r a i n a g e f a c i l i t i e s , a n d p a v e m e n t s t r u c t d e s i . w i l l b , " r e p a r e d f o r r e v i e w a n d c o m m e n t b y R C T C a n d C a l t r a n s . I t i s a s s u m e d t - u p t o t w o ( 2 ) s u b m i t t a l s o f t h e d r a f t o f t h i s t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t , a f i n a l r e p . + a n . - v i s e d f i n a l r e p o r t . T h e p u r p o s e o f p r e l i a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i e n g i n e e r i n g a n a l y s e s , ( P G D R ) f o r r o a d w a y s a n b e p r o v i d e d i n a c c o r d a n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e g e o t e c h n i c a l d a t a n a r e n g i n e e r i n g d e s i g n o f t h e p r o j e c t . P r e l i m i n a r y a t i o n s a n d a P r e l i m i n a r y G e o t e c h n i c a l D e s i g n R e p o r t s r A d v a n c e d P l a n n i n g S t u d y f o r 3 0 b r i d g e s ( 1 5 l o c a t i o n s ) w i l l a l t r a n s r e q u i r e m e n t s . R e v i e w o f B a c k g r o u n d I n f o r m a t i o n W e w i l l c o l l e c t a n d r e v i e w a v a i l a b l e r e l e v a n t a s - b u i l t r o a d w a y a n d b r i d g e p l a n s , e x i s t i n g s o i l , g e o l o g y , s e i s m i c h a z a r d , a n d g r o u n d w a t e r d a t a a n d m a p s m a i n t a i n e d a n d p r o v i d e d b y C a l t r a n s a n d o t h e r a g e n c i e s . T h i s w i l l i n c l u d e b r i d g e g e n e r a l a n d f o u n d a t i o n p l a n s , L o g o f T e s t B o r i n g s ( L O T B ) s h e e t s , r o a d w a y m a t e r i a l s r e p o r t s , a n d b r i d g e f o u n d a t i o n r e p o r t s . N o g e o t e c h n i c a l b o r i n g s w i l l b e t a k e n f o r t h e P A / E D p h a s e o f t h i s p r o j e c t . P r e l i m i n a r y E n g i n e e r i n g A n a l y s e s a n d R e p o r t P r e p a r a t i o n B a s e d o n t h e r e s u l t s o f o u r r e v i e w o f a s - b u i l t d a t a , s i t e - s p e c i f i c f i e l d e x p l o r a t i o n a n d l a b o r a t o r y t e s t i n g r e s u l t s , w e w i l l p e r f o r m p r e l i m i n a r y g e o t e c h n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g a n a l y s e s . P r e l i m i n a r y g e o t e c h n i c a l f i n d i n g s a n d d e s i g n p a r a m e t e r s w i l l b e e v a l u a t e d a n d p r o v i d e d , i n c l u d i n g s i t e g e o l o g y , e n c o u n t e r e d s u b s u r f a c e c o n d i t i o n s , f a u l t i n g a n d s e i s m i c i t y , l i q u e f a c t i o n p o t e n t i a l , c o r r o s i o n p o t e n t i a l , e a r t h w o r k a n d g r a d i n g , r o a d w a y s t r u c t u r a l R C T C : 1 - 1 5 E x p r e s s L a n e s P r o j e c t S o u t h e r n E x t e n s i o n P a g e 1 5 o f 5 2 S c o p e o f W o r k 1 1 6 sections/pavement design, embankment fill induced settlement, excavations, slope stability, lateral earth pressures, rippability evaluation, material specifications, material sources and disposal. Geotechnical recommendations will be provided for preliminary design of bridges, retaining walls, tie -back walls, sound walls, drainage improvements and proposed culverts. The reports will be signed and stamped by a California licensed Geotechnical Engineer (GE) and a Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) and will include exploration logs and field test data, geotechnical laboratory test data, and possibly geotechnical cross sections in addition to the following: • Alignment Conditions: We will review and summarize the surface and subsurface geologic conditions and materials, groundwater conditions, and the engineering properties of earth materials encountered during this investigation. • Seismic Design Parameters: We will present the results of site -specific seismic hazard evaluation including recommended soil ofile type, peak bedrock acceleration and design acceleration response sp: a (ARS) curves for a Maximum ce with the latest version of Credible Earthquake (MCE) seismic event in Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). • Foundation Design Recommendatio investigation, we will recommend a structures. Preliminary foundation desig these reports but only a preli nary rec foundation design is not includetask include: footing data table, bea design parameters includ • •ile d. •le, pile tip elevations, pil deformation) curves • Retaining Wall retaining wall provided. pressure • Earthwork recommenda recommendation drainage, and Ian sing the . - collected during our undation type for the proposed eters, if required, will be provided in endation will be developed. Final low foundation design parameters s and settlements. Pile foundation ial and lateral pile capacities, design nd deflection, and recommended p-y (load- sis of pile shafts. D- - ndations: Recommendations for suitable systems for bridge abutments and wingwalls will be c lateral earth pressures (active, passive and at -rest arameters will also be included. ng: We will present earthwork criteria, including clearing and site preparation, subgrade preparation, removal of unsuitable soil or fill, utility trench backfill, surface scaping considerations, as necessary. Recommendations for import soil engineering and compaction criteria will also be provided. • Corrosion Potential: Results of corrosively data will be compiled and analyzed in accordance with Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines. Recommendations for preliminary corrosion protection and mitigation of steel and concrete foundation elements will also be provided. • Pavement Design: We will present both flexible hot mix asphalt concrete (HMA) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement sections for Traffic Indexes (TI) specified by a Caltrans District 8 Memo. The latest edition of Caltrans Highway Design Manual and local (District 8) design practice will be used in evaluating pavement sections. Pavement design will be based on measured R-values of encountered subgrade soils and anticipated properties of import soils. A life -cycle cost analysis of proposed pavement sections will also be performed in accordance with the current policy of Caltrans District 8. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 16 of 52 Scope of Work 117 Deliverables: Preliminary Materials Report (PMR) & District Preliminary Geotechnical Report (DPGR) - Earthwork, Cuts, Fills, Retaining Walls, Noise Barriers, & Pavement Structural Sections and the LCCA. 160.10.85 Structure Advance Planning Study • Perform Advance Planning Study (APS) for each structure to evaluate the type of structure, foundation and its constructability issues, calculations of horizontal and vertical clearances, staging, preliminary construction durations, structure cost and structure interaction with roadway and railroad facilities. • Develop the APS Report based on Caltrans' Memo to Designers (MTD) 1-8 and Caltrans' Office of Specially Funded Projects' (OSFP) Information and Procedures Guide, including a preliminary seismic retrofit assessment of the existing bridge structures. • Two General Plans (GPs) will be developed for each structure based on the two proposed project alternatives. One structure type will be recommended ii the APS report. The widening of the following existing bridges and undercrwill be studied: Item No. Structure Name No. ype 1 Gavilan Wash 56- Bridge 2 Lake Street UC 56-682 UC 3 Alberhill OH (Temescal Canyon Rd UC) •81 R OH 4 Temescal Wash 56-- Bridge 5 Horsethief Canyon Rd UC •79 R UC 6 Horsethief Canyon Wash •-678 R/L Bridge 7 Indian Wash 677 R/L Bridge 8 Indian Truck Trail Rd UC . •-676 R/L UC 9 Temescal Canyon - • 56-675 R/L UC 10 Mayhew Wash 56-674 R/L Bridge 11 Coldwater W. 56-543 R/L Bridge 12 Glen Ivy UC (Te cal Cany Rd UC)* 56-542 R/L UC 13 Brown Canyon Wa 56-559 R/L Bridge 14 Weirick Rd UC 56-541 R/L UC 15 Bedford Wash 56-540 R/L Bridge Deliverables: APS Report per structure will included: bridge Advance Planning Study exhibit, structural plans for complex and connector -type structures, prepared Advance Planning Study Checklist, a design memo, itemized construction cost estimates consistent with Project Report requirements. 160.10.85.05 Structures Preliminary Geotechnical Report (SPGR) This task includes work to produce a Structures Preliminary Geotechnical Report (SPGR). An SPGR is required during the early stages of a project and shall be included as part of the Structures Advanced Planning Study. The SPGR is used to document existing foundation conditions, make preliminary foundation recommendations, and identify the need for additional investigations and studies. The SPGR will provide the following using Caltrans' Guidelines for Structure Foundation Reports, Chapter 2: RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 17 of 52 Scope of Work 118 " P r o j e c t l o c a t i o n " S u m m a r y o f s i t e g e o l o g y a n d s u b s u r f a c e c o n d i t i o n s " P r e l i m i n a r y s c o u r e v a l u a t i o n b a s e d o n o b s e r v a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g d a t a " C o r r o s i o n e v a l u a t i o n " P r e l i m i n a r y s e i s m i c s t u d y " A s - b u i l t f o u n d a t i o n d a t a " P r e l i m i n a r y f o u n d a t i o n r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 1 5 p r e l i m i n a r y b r i d g e d e s i g n r e p o r t s w i l l b e p r e p a r e d b a s e d p r i m a r i l y o n a s - b u i l t d a t a a n d L O T B d a t a . T h e s e r e p o r t s w i l l f o l l o w C a l t r a n s G u i d e l i n e s f o r S t r u c t u r e s F o u n d a t i o n R e p o r t s a n d w i l l a d d r e s s t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s : " B r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o f s u b s u r f a c e c o n d i t i o n s , " S i t e - s p e c i f i c s e i s m i c i t y , " S i t e - s p e c i f i c l i q u e f a c t i o n d i s c u s s i o n , " S i t e - s p e c i f i c A R S d e s i g n c u r v e , " F o u n d a t i o n t y p e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , " P r e l i m i n a r y r e t a i n i n g w a l l d e s i g n p a r a m e t e r s , " E m b a n k m e n t f i l l s e t t l e m e n t e s t i m a t e s . A t o t a l o f 1 5 s e p a r a t e , b r i e f r e p o r t s w i l l b e p r o v i d e o t h e r p r e l i m i n a r y g e o t e c h n i c a l p a e s t i m a t e s t o s u p p o r t t h e P A / E D . 1 6 0 . 1 0 . 9 0 M a n a g e d L a n e s E A n M L E S w i l l b e p r e p a r e d i n a c c a n d w o r k p r e v i o u s l y c o n o t c h a n g e d s i n c e b p r e p a r e t h e M L E S S t r e e t s a n d H i g h w a y s c o m p l e t e t h e s a f e t y a n a l s a f e t y a n a l y s i s s e c t i o n f o r l y t o d o c u m e n t f o u n d a t i o n a n d t o c o n c e p t u a l d e s i g n a n d i n i t i a l c o s t L E S ) 1 1 - 0 2 w h i c h i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h c u r r e n t g u i d a n c e E L P . C a l t r a n s n o t e d t h a t T O P D 1 1 - 0 2 g u i d e l i n e s h a v e e e d t h e a p p r o a c h f o r R C T C ' s 1 - 1 5 E L P S E T e a m t o o p e r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s a n d n a r r a t i v e s e c t i o n o n m e e t i n g t h e e a c c e p t a b l e . C a l t r a n s i n d i c a t e d t h e M L E S w i l l n e e d t o o n p e r T O P D 1 1 - 0 2 . C a l t r a n s D i s t r i c t 8 s t a f f c o m p l e t e d t h e L P ( 2 0 1 6 ) t h i s a p p r o a c h w i l l b e f o l l o w e d b y t h e 1 - 1 5 E L P S E T e a m a n d t h e H D R T e a m w i l l b e i n c l u d e t h e s a f e t y a n a l y s i s s e c t i o n i n t h e M L E S . T h e r e p o r t w i l l d o c u m e n t e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s a n d e v a l u a t e t h e e f f e c t s o f H O V a n d E L o p t i o n s o n c o n g e s t i o n a n d c a p a c i t y . T h e H O V a n d E L o p t i o n s w i l l b e c o m p a r e d w i t h e a c h o t h e r a n d w i t h t h e m i x e d - f l o w l a n e o p t i o n s . E x i s t i n g a n d f o r e c a s t f u t u r e v e h i c l e o c c u p a n c y w i l l b e e v a l u a t e d . P o t e n t i a l p o l i c y m e a s u r e s t o m a i n t a i n e f f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e H O V / E L , s u c h a s t o l l a d j u s t m e n t s o r i n c r e a s i n g t h e m i n i m u m o c c u p a n c y r e q u i r e m e n t s , w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d . I n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e H O V / E L i n t o t h e r e g i o n a l n e t w o r k o f s u c h f a c i l i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e e x i s t i n g E L f a c i l i t y o n I - 1 5 , w i l l a l s o b e e v a l u a t e d a n d d i s c u s s e d . D e l i v e r a b l e s : D r a f t a n d F i n a l M L E S R e p o r t R C T C : 1 - 1 5 E x p r e s s L a n e s P r o j e c t S o u t h e r n E x t e n s i o n P a g e 1 8 o f 5 2 S c o p e o f W o r k 1 1 9 160.10.90 Preliminary Signing Concept A Preliminary Signing Concept will be prepared as a 1:200 scale strip plot that will show draft locations of all OH signs and CMS/ DMS that conform to Caltrans standards. Deliverables: Preliminary Signing Concept 160.10.90.1 Modified Access Report (MAR) memo & FHWA Project Oversight Agreement A MAR memo will be prepared to document that a MAR is not required as part of this project in accordance with FHWA guidelines. A formal MAR is not required for 1-15 ELPSE since ramp modifications are not planned for this Project. An Oversight Agreement will be prepared in conjunction with RCTC staff related to the capital expenditure cost, funding sources, and Design -Build delivery for the project and will be submitted by RCTC to Caltrans and FHWA for review and approv Deliverables: Draft and Final MAR Memo, Draft and Final Pr 160.10.91 Constructability Review A preliminary Constructability review will be perfor on the Alternative Staging Plans and will evaluate the follo g ite • Structure Widening • R/W Requirements including TCE's, • Utility Relocations and Service Drop L • Conceptual Drainage and S • Retaining wall and nois Deliverables: Draft and Final P • as 160.10.95 Updated P We will evaluate the Caltrans TMP checklis updated by the Design-B Deliverables: Preliminary Tr t Oversight Agreement for the preferred Build cess, and Potential Staging Areas atment Locations tructability Memo rtation Management Plan ffic control to develop the associated costs with the current PA/ED to support project cost estimates. The TMP will be ctor in the final delivery phase. portation Management Plan Checklist (Draft & Final). 160.10.99 Toll Concept Report A Toll Concept Repot will be prepared and include high-level information related to express lanes, including toll policy goals, toll policies, potential business rules, toll system components and infrastructure, toll signage, enforcement methods, ingress/egress design, and operation and maintenance considerations. Includes early tolling strategy and lessons learned workshop and three (3) workshops associated with the Toll Policy Report. Deliverables: Draft and Final TCR 160.15.05 Prepare Cost Estimates for Alternatives We will provide "order of magnitude" cost estimates for two (2) alternatives based on Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual guidelines for Project Report cost estimates. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 19 of 52 Scope of Work 120 In addition, we will develop preliminary cost estimates for the toll collection equipment for the capital equipment needed for violation enforcement. Estimates will be based on the number of tolling locations (ingress/egress points), data collection backbone (fiber and/or wireless), and toll facility signs that are necessary for the express lanes. Deliverables: Project Report cost estimates. (Preliminary Capital Cost / Draft & Final Engineers Estimate) and preliminary estimates for anticipated toll equipment and signage. 160.15.10 Prepare DSDD for Exceptions to Design Standards We will identify non-standard design features based on the Design Checklist (DIB 78-02, dated 2018) for each of the two (2) build alternatives. DSDD will be prepared for exceptions to Bold and Underline standards for the selected/preferred alternative only. Up to four submittals (three review cycles) of the DSDD are anticipated. Deliverables: List of Non -Standard Features for two (2) alternatives, DSDD for Exceptions to Design Standards for the selected alternative. 160.15.20 Prepare Draft Project Report This task entails preparing a Project Report based o f e Pro Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) Appendix K. All information pr .red as p f Task 160.10 will be incorporated into the Project Report in accordanc= th th- 'DPM. A reliminary Draft Project Report will be submitted to RCTC and Caltrans f. -v' and comment. Following receipt of one consolidated set of comments, a comment -w workshop will be held with the respondents to review their comments and appr. .te responses. A Final Draft Project Report will be prepared and submitted for . • • •val. Based on the current Project Development Procedures Manual, the Draft • -..rt will be submitted to FHWA as the basis for approval related to imp nts . -15 if needed. It is assumed that minimal changes to the Draft Project Re• will nece .ry to satisfy FHWA requirements if a MAR is required due to changes in ra on 5 which are not expected under this Project. Up to four (4) submittals (three re, ycles o the Draft Project Report. In addition, we will pre- - t - lin• -ction of the Project Report. A preliminary Draft Project Report will be sub d to RC .n• altrans for review and comment. Following receipt of one consolidated se comma s, a comment review workshop will be held with the respondents to review th. om is and provide appropriate responses. A Final Draft Project Report will be prepared an• itted for review and approval. Deliverables: Preliminary Draft and Final Draft Project Report 160.15.25 Circulate, Review and Approve Draft Project Report Once the Final Draft Project Report has been submitted for review and approval, our project manager or his designee will work with RCTC and Caltrans to obtain the appropriate signatures. If issues or questions arise during the approval phase, we will work with RCTC and/or Caltrans staff to answer any remaining questions, provides additional information, and obtain signatures as appropriate. Deliverables: Signed Draft Project Report 160.20.30 Land Net Surveys & 160.20.35 Land Net Map The existing land net digital data will be obtained, reviewed and updated to include new developments since the 2009 surveys. Cadastral research will be performed within Caltrans District 8, the county of Riverside, and other applicable entities for new mapping that affects the RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 20 of 52 Scope of Work 121 Caltrans right of way, and other adjacent and intersecting rights -of -way within the project limits. The new mapping will be calculated and tied into the existing land net mapping via field surveys. Deliverables: Field survey notes and updated land net mapping file. 160.20.50 Control Surveys Horizontal and vertical corridor control will be established along the corridor to support the aerial photogrammetry, land net surveys, engineering surveys and future design and construction activities along the corridor. The survey control will be set in accordance with Caltrans survey standards and will be tied into the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83 NSRS 2007) and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88 Riverside County) or as specified by the client. 160.20.55 Photogrammetric Mapping Current aerial photogrammetric mapping will be obtained for the accordance with the Caltrans A-B-C process and Caltrans ph standards and specifications. This mapping will replace the during the PSR. While the Caltrans A-B-C process is no -.uire for PS&E and/or final design. It is recommended that aerial m accordance with the A-B-C process so that it is ava' • e for tur ect limits defined above in rammetric and CAD mapping erial mapping captured PA/ED, it will be required ap. • be captured in e des phases of this project. Aerial mapping will be obtained for the 1-15 corn etween Railroad Canyon Rd IC and Hidden Valley Parkway IC. The limits of tho map • will include a swath of 2000-feet on each side of the centerline of the 1-15 corrid. o - •ho .raphy. The aerial mapping will be prepared ' photogrammetric specifications. aerial triangulation requiremen contours and will be delivered Survey crews will field coverage or shadows mapping. A color digital orthopho ith 3" ixel resolution will be prepared from the 50-scale imagery. onfor - witaltrans CAD mapping standards and I anertical aerial control panels will be set to meet pping ill be prepared to 1" = 50' scale with 1-foot format. The digital orthophoto will mapping to delineate planimetrics obstructed by tree ntours and spot elevations generated from the aerial e same mapping limits described above. Deliverables - Mapping at 1" = 50' scale in a Microstation v8 format. 160.20.60 Engineering Surveys Supplemental topographic surveys will be performed as needed in join areas to locate existing pavement (asphalt / concrete) and other hard surface elevations and to locate large drainage structures, box culverts, bridge structures, surface utilities, flood plains, drainage ditches, base of retaining walls, noise barriers, OH sign structures, CT fiber optic access vaults/manholes and other major features along the corridor in support of the preliminary design studies of alternatives. The topographic survey information will be plotted at a scale comparable to the aerial mapping in a Microstation v8 format. Deliverables: Topographic survey information at a scale comparable to the aerial mapping in a Microstation v8 format and ASCII file of the topographic survey points. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 21 of 52 Scope of Work 122 160.20.70 Pavement Surveys Pavement surveys will be performed as needed to verify edge of traveled way, edge of shoulder and other pavement features along the corridor for the COP only. The survey crew will use reflectorless total station technology or other scanning capabilities to obtain this data, no formal lane or shoulder closures have been included in this cost estimate. The topographic survey information will be plotted at a scale comparable to the aerial mapping in a Microstation v8 format. Deliverables: Topographic survey information at a scale comparable to the aerial mapping in a Microstation v8 format and ASCII file of the topographic survey points. 160.30.05 Maps for Environmental Evaluation We will prepare environmental study maps for the alternatives selected for further study. • Project vicinity map • Project location map • Proposed project/alternatives plans • State right-of-way and adjacent parcel mapping • Hydrologic and floodplain identification from exis • Fault and environmental geology mapping frorrlstirfata • Biological and cultural mapping Deliverables: Environmental study maps. 160.30.10.01 Create and Maintain ' atab We will create and maintain a The objective of this task is t with engineering and topographi and considerations wit impacts associated components/data to properties, the 100-ye sites, sensitive visual fe publicly available sources w shall be used throughout the PA/ED phase. ental baseline data in a manner compatible urate mapping of the environmental constraints tudy area is essential to facilitate analysis of potential alternatives under consideration. Environmental the GIS database include Section 4(f) resources, historic , water features, waters of the U.S., hazardous materials nd uses and right-of-way, and noise receptors. Data from e used as a starting point and adjusted, as appropriate, based on field surveys and observations. Data will be provided in a manner consistent with the project base mapping to ensure that the datasets are compatible and can be used for evaluation of each alternative's effects on the environment. Deliverables: GIS Database - electronic shape files used for build alternative maps will be transferred to RCTC via ftp, external drive, or cloud based share site from PA/ED 160.30.15 Obtain Rights of Entry for Environmental Studies We will require access to some private and public lands as needed for environmental technical studies. We will coordinate with RCTC and Caltrans to identify properties where property access is needed for the technical studies. We will provide a draft right -of -entry (ROE) request letter for distribution to affected property owners to be reviewed by RCTC. The Draft ROE letter will specify the duration and purpose of property access. We will make changes to the ROE letter as specified by RCTC. The final ROE will be distributed in the manner specified by RCTC with reimbursement for preparation and mailing if required. All field personnel will be provided RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 22 of 52 Scope of Work 123 with copies of the appurtenant ROE documents in the event that field verification of permission is requested. Deliverables: Mapping itemized under Task 165.05.20 Aerial and site photos Identification of properties requiring ROEs (200 parcels maximum) Draft and Final ROE letters 165 Perform Environmental Studies and Prepare Draft ED 165.05 Environmental Scoping of Alternatives Identified for Studies in PID It is assumed that two Build Alternatives and a No Build Alternative will be studied as identified in the RCTC Request for Qualifications for Completion of PA/ for the 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Southern Extension. No additional alternatives a ssumed in this scope to be evaluated during the environmental process. The tasks i under 165.05 are described below. We will obtain and examine applicable information fry prior stagese project development process to support the environmental evaluation d 165.05.05 Project Information Review We will obtain and review previous docum Project Study Report, as well as information Subtasks: • Obtain and examine projec • Discuss and verify initial Pu evaluations with the Pr • Obtain and examin • Verify Clean Air • Start Project File g the development of the original d projects. tages ternatives, and previous environmental stings tat of project and alternatives Deliverables: Initial Envir• al Project File Setup 165.05.10 Perform Public and Agency Scoping and Community Outreach The consultant will provide assistance to the Project Team to organize and facilitate up to two public scoping meetings to inform the public and responsible agencies about the proposed project and the environmental process, and to solicit input from the agencies and public regarding the alternative to be evaluated in the EIR/EIS and environmental parameters and potential impacts to be assessed in the EIR/EIS. We will follow the Caltrans SER in preparing the NEPA and CEQA notices and initiating the scoping process. A third meeting may be held if deemed necessary by RCTC in conjunction with a regularly occurring meeting held for outreach with Temecula Valley residents. 165.05.10.01 Initiation of Studies Letters We will prepare the Cooperating and Participating Agency letters based on the letter templates available on the Caltrans SER. The Cooperating and Participating Agencies will be identified RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 23 of 52 Scope of Work 124 and agreed upon with the PDT. Letters will be mailed via certified mail to the agencies and the responses (or lack thereof) will be tracked. Any comments received from the agencies will be shared with the PDT and will be taken into consideration when preparing the technical studies and environmental document. Deliverables: Prepare and distribute Cooperating and Participating Agency letters and track responses 165.05.10.02 Prepare and Distribute NOI and NOP We will prepare a draft NOP using the CEQA Initial Study (IS) Checklist. The NOP will include a summarized project description, project map, the CEQA IS Checklist, and brief answers to the checklist questions based on existing available information. No new information is assumed to be developed in completing the checklist. Because it is anticipated that an EIR/EIS will be prepared, detailed answers to the checklist questions will not be developed. Rather, the responses will be brief and will indicate the anticipated ra of potential impacts of the proposed project that will be addressed in the EIR/EIS. We .rovide the Draft NOP to RCTC and Caltrans for review. It is assumed that only the two . i. identified build alternatives will be addressed in the NOP. Based on comments received, we will revise thets and distribution list to Caltrans for approval. HDRs outreach consultant will develop t certified mail to the State Office of Plan officials, affected agencies, interested group utilizing the property ownership list t As part of this task an initial p logical termini will be reviewe termini. Responses Received All written response PDT. These respons and environmental docu will, however, be considere mit the final NOP and istributi ist and will distribute the NOP via Res h (State Clearinghouse), elected owners within 500 feet of the project HD right of way consultant. nd project description will be prepared and e project meets the requirements for logical d to the NOP and NOI will be tracked and shared with the n into consideration when preparing the technical studies responses will be prepared to the comments received; they n preparing the environmental document. Deliverables: Draft and Final NOP with Initial Study (CEQA Checklist), with written responses, Draft and Final distribution list. NOI and NOP responses tracking matrix 165.05.10.03 Prepare for and Conduct Scoping Meetings We will attend up to two (2) public scoping meetings, in the project area, to inform the public and responsible agencies about the proposed project and the environmental process, and to solicit input from agencies and the public regarding the alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR/EIS and environmental parameters and potential impacts to be assessed in the EIR/EIS. We will prepare a draft and final public scoping meeting notice for publication in newspapers (English and Spanish language) as agreed upon by the PDT. A third meeting may be held if deemed necessary by RCTC in conjunction with a regularly occurring meeting held for outreach with Temecula Valley residents. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 24 of 52 Scope of Work 125 The following will be prepared; • Prepare sign -in sheets and comment cards • Provide a Spanish translator at meetings • Provide a court report at meetings if needed • Prepare a written summary of written comments received on comment cards at the scoping meetings • Prepare all display boards • Conduct and document environmental scoping meeting(s) Conduct and document other formal and informal public participation activities such as citizen's committees, focus groups, presentations to political bodies, and media appearances, not directly related to preparation and coordination of a technical work product. • Prepare and circulate newsletters and other public informatio► and press materials • Prepare and maintain Project Distribution/Mailing List • Coordinate posting of public information documents to • Any project website development and maintenance • Coordinate public input for the project alternativ • Publish meeting notices in newspapers as idea • Identify and reserve meeting locations • Provide refreshments and other materia • Prepare Summary of Public Scoping Mee Deliverables: Draft and Final scoping meetin Review and input to publi 165.05.10.04 Draft A Draft Scoping Su Caltrans' efforts to identi range of project alternative ebsite pose aneed e PDT coping meetings terials prepared by others ary eport will be prepared to document the Project Team's and es related to the scope of the environmental issues and the should be addressed in the EIR/EIS for the proposed project. The scoping report will summarize the scoping meetings and the issues raised in response to the NOP and NOI and the scoping meetings. The scoping report will include copies of the NOP, and NOI, the distribution list, the newspaper notices, and the written comments received at the scoping meeting and in response to the NOP and NOI. The Draft Scoping Summary Report will be submitted to RCTC for review. Based on comments received, we will revise the document and submit the Draft Scoping Summary Report to Caltrans for review. Deliverables: Draft Scoping Summary Report 165.05.10.05 Final Scoping Summary Report The Draft Scoping Summary Report will be revised based on the comments received from Caltrans and a final Scoping Summary Report will be prepared and distributed to RCTC and Caltrans. The information received during the project scoping process will be incorporated into the environmental review and analysis in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA and NEPA. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 25 of 52 Scope of Work 126 Deliverables: Draft Initiation of Studies Letters (electronic submittal) Final Initiation of Studies Letters (hard copy submittal to the addressees) Draft NOP and NOP Distribution List (10 hard copies and electronic submittal to RCTC) Final NOP and NOP Distribution List (115 hard copies; 100 for distribution and 15 for RCTC) Draft and Final newspaper notices (electronic submittals to RCTC and the newspapers) Draft Display Materials and Handouts for the scoping meetings (electronic submittals to RCTC) Final Display Materials and Handouts for the scoping meetings (150 hard copies of the handout; one hard set of the display materials) Draft Scoping Summary Report (electronic submittal to RCTC) Final Scoping Summary Report (10 hard copies and electronic submittal to RCTC) Court Reporter, as requested by RCTC. SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan In cooperation with Caltrans, we will prepare a coor agencies that will be part of the NEPA review proce The coo follows: • Actively involve and establish lines of communi • Encourage early and continuing participa ion and i • Promote project understanding and proj • Identify opportunities for agency review goals and objectives, range of a • Promote timely notice of me • Streamline the review of e Deliverables: Draft and Final Coor. -tion Plan -morandum Updates to Project Risk an to identify participating tion plan's goals are as affected agencies on the project's Purpose and Need, ysis methodologies, and issues of concern and other project events ents 165.05.15 Alternatives for her Study Identification of the initial alternatives from preliminary design concepts for the corridor will be one of the critical milestones. The initial set of alternatives considered will address, to varying degrees, the project Purpose and Need. Alternatives must also have support from RCTC, Caltrans, other project stakeholders, and the public. The list of alternatives will be cataloged as early operational analysis and engineering viability assessment progresses stemming from early concepts deemed as viable for early further study and will be organized into the following groupings for PA/ED: • Alternatives reviewed and removed from further consideration • Alternatives that will be subjected to preliminary analysis to determine if they should be carried forward or removed from further consideration • Additional alternatives that will be carried forward for additional analysis in the environmental technical studies RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 26 of 52 Scope of Work 127 These findings will be organized into a brief alternatives selection memorandum that will be presented to the PDT for review and comment. Once the PDT agrees upon the findings, we will prepare a revised report for distribution to the PDT. Two build alternatives, identified previously, and the No -Build Alternative are assumed to be evaluated for the proposed project. No additional alternative selection is assumed. Deliverables: Draft and Final Alternatives Selection Memorandum. 165.10 Perform General Environmental Studies Preparation of all technical analyses and reports will follow local, state, and federal environmental guidelines, primarily consisting of the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) website, Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, local and state CEQA Guidelines, and FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.81 Guidance on Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. T formats to be used for the technical studies will follow the guidance available on the Ca s SER website as of the date that those studies are initiated. See scope of work for each technical study for details r .. rdindies to be prepared. Only those technical studies identified in this scope of w are assu or included. Any other technical studies or efforts included under WBS s odes under 1. .re assumed to be not required or addressed by others. For this scope of work, the technical studies for included have been assumed based on - review preliminary review of the project site. environmental phase of the project a scope to their initiation. For each report the following sub .Is I be de. • Draft Technical Study (ele ical : nd then Caltrans) • Revised Draft Technical Stud ctronical y to RCTC and Caltrans) • Final Technical Stu► •r .. .v. ectronically to RCTC and Caltrans) • Final approved T + nical Stu• for e (4 hardcopies each to RCTC and Caltrans) The following ass ions ha been made with regard to the technical studies and permits that are to be prepar • No Section 7 consultati. .r California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 or 2080.1 consultation will be required, other than the consistency determination and Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) required under the MSHCP. • Permit applications and processing (Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 404 permit, and Section 1602 Streambed Alternation Agreement), plus any associated Habitat Mitigation Maintenance and Monitoring Plan are not included in this scope of work. • NEPA/404 integration process will not be required. a specific scope of work has been existing project information and a udies are identified during the t will be submitted for approval prior 165.10.15 Community Impact Analysis, Land Use, and Growth Studies A Community Impact Assessment (CIA) will be prepared and will identify the community impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, businesses, and minority and low-income populations as a result of project implementation. The CIA will assess the project's compatibility with the existing and future land uses and consistency with local land use plans, including municipal (Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, and Riverside) and Riverside and San Bernardino County general plans, regional transportation plans, and habitat conservation plans. The CIA will be RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 27 of 52 Scope of Work 128 low-income population groups. including minority and low-inco effects on minority and low-inc Growth Inducement a impacts analysis and on the Caltrans (http://www.dot.ca.gov Growth-related_Indirectl wise process to determine prepared following the Caltrans Environmental Handbook: Volume 4 - Community Impact Assessment (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol4/envhb4.pdf) and the Community Impact Assessment Template as provided by the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Guidelines (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/guidance.htm). The CIA will consider residential and business acquisitions and relocations; and changes to access/circulation, community cohesion characteristics, demographic characteristics, growth, and community facilities. The area of measurement for demographic analysis may be conducted in one of two ways. This includes utilizing data from the 2010 U.S. Census for information at the census block group level or from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates for information at the census tract level to identify characteristics of populations that are traversed by or adjacent to the proposed project. The nature and size of the area of measurement should be based on the level of detail of available data, the size of the project, and the potential area affected. Community profiles will be collected for the cities of Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, and Riverside, Riversid- and San Bernardino County, and the State of California to help identify regional and local ds regarding demographics, local industry, occupations, and tax base. Property tax a .les tax revenue issues will be identified and discussed. Maps and graphics for the CIA will be prepared GIS-based maps and graphics will be formatted 20 maps will be included in the CIA. The CIA will include documentation on Envir Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Populations. The EJ analysis will inclu characteristics of the project area po• ation I ad tion usi •eographi ormation systems (GIS). f� •ubli tion in nmental ent a inted document. Up to ice (EJ) issues pursuant to Executive stice in Minority and Low -Income n on demographic and economic tify the presence of any minority and se effects on the project area population, ps and disproportionately high and adverse ps, will be analyzed. Impacts — We will prepare growth -related, indirect ative impacts analysis for community resources based ow -related, indirect impacts and cumulative impacts e_guidance/approach.htm and http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/ sis/gri_guidance.htm). The analysis will follow the step - el of impact assessment and appropriate level of research and documentation. For this scope of services, it is assumed that up to fifty (50) projects will be reviewed as part of the cumulative impacts analysis and that a qualitative analysis will be appropriate for the growth -related, indirect impacts analysis. Should a greater level of analysis be required, an amendment to the scope of services and cost estimate may be prepared for RCTC's authorization to conduct additional research. The cumulative and growth -related analyses for community impacts will be included in the CIA and will be used in preparing the cumulative and indirect impacts analyses for the overall project to be presented in the EIR/EIS. Assumptions: One No Build Alternative and two (2) build alternatives will be considered in the analysis GIS maps will be used in CIA; up to twenty (20) maps will be prepared RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 28 of 52 Scope of Work 129 Latest versions of Caltrans guidance documents available at time of preparation of the draft technical report will be used Up to twenty-five (25) copies of the administrative draft CIA will be printed for submittal for review; up to 50 copies of the final CIA will be printed; a PDF version will also be prepared An administrative draft CIA will be prepared; up to two rounds of review and revision of the CIA are assumed in the scope of services in order to produce a Final CIA Available metadata catalogues will be used to assemble data for CIA GIS maps. These base maps will be updated for the CIA based on field surveys conducted as part of the data gathering and analysis for the community impact assessment including the EJ analysis and the cumulative and growth -related, indirect impact assessment. Deliverables: Draft and Final Community Impact Assessment Report 165.10.20 Visual Impact Assessment and Scenic Resource Ev. luation 1-15 within Riverside County is eligible for designation as a Sta .cenic highway, but is not officially designated. However, 1-15 is identified on Figure C-e County of Riverside General Plan as a scenic corridors that is protected for its . th- alue under Land Use Element, Scenic Corridor policies LU 14.1 through 14. I of whic' •tect designated and eligible State and county scenic highways. The ELP roject would . +ccurring within a corridor noted for its scenic views. However, the p sed jects would not greatly alter views of the highway corridor and they are not likely to alte to the surrounding landscape, for which the corridor is noted. It is assumed th. . full vis pact assessment (VIA) will be prepared for the proposed project. The analysis will be performed using method o . developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and adoptee Ca s and will utilize Caltrans' VIA template. The analysis will define the project to on a setti describe visual resources and resource change and viewer groups an <-wer • • • e sociate with the project; and evaluate potential visual impacts caused • • o• • - •roject, including any proposed mitigation measures to reduce imp We will conduct a fiel- sit to as s t -xisting visual resource conditions in the project area, for use in preparing . nalysis. e field visit will photo inventory existing conditions including viewpoints, notable vis esourc , and the visual quality of the project area. After the field visit, the photographs will . • • oaded and logged by location. Up to six (6) visual simulatis for the preferred build alternative and up to two (2) visual simulations for the COP (eight (8) total) will be prepared. The simulations will present the before and after project conditions. The location and direction of the visual simulations will be coordinated with RCTC and Caltrans prior to preparing the simulations. Deliverables: Key View Location Memorandum and Visual Impact Assessment containing six (6) visual simulations for the preferred build alternative and up to two (2) visual simulations for the COP (eight (8) total). 165.10.25 Noise Study We will prepare a Noise Study Report (NSR) evaluating the noise impacts and potential noise abatement/mitigation measures, if any, associated with the proposed project. Because federal and Caltrans oversight is involved, the report will be prepared in accordance with procedures specified by FHWA in Title 23, Section 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (23 CFR 772) and the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Protocol). RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 29 of 52 Scope of Work 130 A field noise study will be performed to quantify and assess existing noise conditions at the potential noise -sensitive areas. Short-term sound -level data (typically two consecutive 10- minute measurements) will be collected at up to ninety (90) representative locations along the alignment. In addition, continuous long-term noise monitoring (24 hours or more) will be conducted at up to nine (9) locations. Noise measurements will be conducted in accordance with the methodologies detailed in the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS). We will conduct traffic noise modeling related to the proposed project using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5 and traffic data to be provided by the project traffic engineer. TNM will be used to model worst -hour traffic noise conditions at representative modeled receiver locations under existing conditions and design -year Build (with -project) and No Build (without -project) conditions. Traffic noise impacts of the proposed project under 23CFR772 w' be assessed by determining if implementation of the project is projected to result in traffi •ise levels under design -year conditions that approach or exceed the FHWA noise .tement criteria (NAC) or if implementation of the project is predicted to result in a to increase in noise at noise - sensitive uses. If traffic noise impacts are projected occur, i ation on the preliminary feasibility and reasonableness of noise abatement, . .efined in the •tocol, will be evaluated and presented for use by decision makers in . ,sidernoise abatement. We will also evaluate potential construction noise impacts u -thods recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation. We will prepare a NSR addressing the requi R772 in accordance with guidance in the Protocol and following the NS' report in ated in the Caltrans Annotated Noise Study Report Outline. If warrante. R include a preliminary noise abatement design to schematically identify the loc. •n, he' t, an. xtent of noise barriers needed to abate noise impacts. In accordance with ' •col - e description of noise walls will be sufficient for environmental review of the .sed pro -ct, but not for final design of the walls. If the analysis identifies that - er •uld be acoustically feasible and would meet the adopted design criteria then - : emen Est wances will be calculated in the NSR and a Noise Abatement Decision •ort (NAD will be prepared. The NADR will determine if noise barriers are reasonable on the . s of co- : nd other factors (safety, geometric standards, etc.). If noise barriers are identified as n• asonable in the NADR then the necessary outreach/voting process will be conducted -termine if the barriers should be included in the project. It is assumed that outreach/voting will be conducted for up to sixty benefitted receptors. Deliverables: Draft and Final Noise Work Plan and Draft and Final Noise Study Report. 165.10.25.05 Public Info Meeting for Noise Walls It is assumed that up to two public meetings will be conducted related to the potential noise walls. Our project manager and noise specialist will attend the meeting and will assist in preparing for the meeting as well as a bilingual member of our team. We will prepare the handouts that describe wall design criteria or FAQ and an interactive map displayed on a large display that allows for viewing by general meeting attendees over an aerial photo of the project area with the proposed improvements of the preferred alternative overlaid on top of the aerial photo or in a .kmz file format. An interactive station will be available using a touch screen RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 30 of 52 Scope of Work 131 device. This station allows individuals to zoom into areas within the project to view proposed improvements in areas of personal interest during an open house or public meeting. Deliverables: Attendance at two public meeting related to noise walls by project manager and noise specialist, employ an interactive map for display of potential noise wall locations 165.10.25.10 Public Voting On Noise Walls If a public vote is warranted related to the noise walls we will prepare the necessary materials for conducting and tabulating this vote by ballot mailings. It is assumed that this will consist of a single vote prior to or at each of the two public meetings described under 165.10.25.05. It is assumed that additional voting coordination may be required with nonresponsive owners/occupants and may result in follow up notices via mail or site visits to contact occupants with a flyer being left at the door. It is expected this will occur with a limited number of residents and will be coordinated with RCTC if needed. Deliverables: Preparation of materials and tabulation of voteough mailed ballots. 165.10.25.15 Finalize Noise Wall Locations Based on the outcome of the public meeting for nois: alls and pub will identify the appropriate final sound wall locatio .s appriate. Deliverables: Final location of sound walls, if require 165.10.25.20 Noise Abatement Decision We will prepare the noise abatement Deliverables: Noise Abateme 165.10.30 Air Quality Assessm We will prepare an associated with ch proposed project an Report and Final Traffi consistent with the technic Environmental Reference (air port sment report that analyzes air pollutant emissions d and traffic distribution patterns resulting from the nalysis parameters from the Final Volumes Development s Analysis Report. All impact analyses will be performed rements and methodologies outlined in the Caltrans' Standard uality chapter). oting on noise walls we The air quality technical report will provide the following discussions and analyses: Regulatory Setting and Existing Conditions. Summarize the existing federal, state, and local air quality regulatory environment as it affects the proposed project, and describe the location of sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Using data provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the SCAQMD, characterize existing air quality conditions in the project area and explain how those conditions are affected by local climate and topography. Evaluation of Construction Emissions. Based on current District 8 procedure, provide a quantitative discussion related to construction emissions. Regional Transportation Conformity. Evaluate whether the project meets regional transportation conformity requirements by determining whether it is included, as currently defined, in the most recent Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 31 of 52 Scope of Work 132 Improvement Program (RTIP) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Localized Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis. Analyze the degree to which project -related traffic volumes have a potential to effect local carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations using the California Department of Transportation CO Hotspot Protocol. It is anticipated that the CO screening procedure will be appropriate and that CALINE-4 dispersion modeling will not be required. Localized PM2.5/PM,o Hot Spot Analysis. Analyze the degree to which project -related traffic volumes have a potential to affect local PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations, based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance document entitled Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot -spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM fig Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. This scope and cost assumes that a screening level analysis is appropriate, and that no modeling will be required by Caltrans or FHWA to address PM2.5 and PM1o. Mobile Source Air Toxics. Evaluate proposed project-relat emissions in accordance with FHWA interim guidance o NEPA documents. As directed by said guidance docu be 140,000 or greater, the analysis will include gio project's effects on MSAT emissions. Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Assess the issue of greenhouse gas (GH c sions climate change. The analysis will include regional emission calculations basosed project's effect on the local vehicle miles and hours traveled. Th- GHG . s •e coordinated with Caltrans prior to preparing the analysis. Dispersion Modeling for He Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (2 California Supreme Cou recent corridor project air quality impacts foreseeable effects o and CAAQS provided in , if des nal quan obile source air toxics (MSATs) Ts should be addressed in ear AADT is projected to ve assessment of the In light of the recent Sierra Club v. County of 2, Case No. S219783 decision made by the 24, 2018, and based on the recent experience on other will conduct dispersion modeling to evaluate long-term 0 ozone precursors and provide a discussion of the ated emissions on the likelihood of exceeding the NAAQS IS. This analysis will assist project emissions and adverse health consequences or exby it is not scientifically possible to define such a connection. The dispersion modeling will be included as an attachment to the air quality assessment report. Air Quality Conformity Analysis Report and Checklist. Under NEPA Assignment, the federal air quality conformity determination has not been delegated to Caltrans and must be made by FHWA. We will prepare a separate Air Quality Conformity Analysis using the annotated outline for this report on the SER at the time that the report is initiated and will also prepare the Conformity Checklist based on the checklist that is available on the SER at the time that the Air Quality Conformity Analysis Report is prepared. SCAG Transportation Conformity Working Group. The required TCWG form will be completed and submitted to Caltrans for forwarding to RCTC/SCAG for inclusion on the agenda for determining if the project is a project of air quality concern (POAQC). It is assumed the project will be found to not be a POAQC and that no specific analysis will be required related to the TCWG determination other than what is already included in this scope of work. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 32 of 52 Scope of Work 133 Mitigation Measures. We will develop mitigation measures, where applicable, to address significant air quality impacts, if present. Deliverables: Draft and Final Air Quality Assessment Report. 165.10.35 Water Quality Studies In accordance with the Project Planning and Design Guide dated July 2017, a Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) shall be prepared. The SWDR will include the following information: project description, identification of the receiving water bodies, geotechnical information, design pollution prevention and post -construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed, costs, and checklists. The SWDR will be signed by the Project Engineer and then submitted to Caltrans for review and approval by the District/Regional Design Storm Water Coordinator, the designated Landscape Representative, the designated Maintenance Representative, and final approval by the Project Manager to verify that storm water quality design issues have been addressed, and the data are complete, current, and accurate. T - SWDR will be prepared and revised at the Draft and Final PR phases. Water quality requirements for local surface water and g this region by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Co Plan on water quality standards. During construction potential to result in water quality impacts to multipl resources due to stormwater runoff from the projec bridge crossings over waterbodies may need to be project. Affected waterbodies may include Coldwater Wash, Mayhew Wash, Indian Wa Wash. A portion of Temescal Wash located e Magnolia Avenue to Lee Lake, is li A Water Quality Assessment accordance with NEPA an Reference Guidelines. T Recommended Forma impact on water q available documents, The WQAR will docu Boa operation, rfaces►nraterbod ro r resources are regulated in ARWQCB) and its Basin roject would have the and groundwater g discharged. In addition, multiple d or improved to accommodate the ash, Brown Canyon Wash, sh, Temescal Wash, and Gavilan ect, from 1,400 feet upstream of impaired waterbody. r the proposed project will be prepared in ents and Caltrans Standard Environmental will be prepared using the 2017 WQAR Content and ed on the Caltrans SER website. The project's potential u. d. Water quality data will be compiled from existing ater Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. tion on potentially affected surface water and groundwater resources, pollutants of c. , impairments, and beneficial uses of these waters. Findings from the Location Hydraulic study, Storm Water Data Report, and other pertinent technical studies prepared for the project will be incorporated into the WQAR. Best Management Practices and other measures, if needed, will be recommended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate water quality impacts and to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Deliverables: Draft and Final Storm Water Data Report and Water Quality Assessment Report 165.10.40 Energy Studies A separate energy study is not anticipated to be required and is not included in this scope of work. 165.10.45 Summary of Geotechnical Report In this task, information from the project geotechnical report will be summarized for use in the project environmental document. The summary will address geologic setting, major faults, RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 33 of 52 Scope of Work 134 seismicity, ground shaking, topography, groundwater levels and the groundwater regime, soil conditions, and the presence of bedrock. It will also discuss feasible foundation alternatives for the structures, retaining walls and sound walls, discuss slope stability, and address other geotechnical related design issues including the need for additional field investigation required for final design. We will also prepare a summary of all of these geotechnical findings, distilled down for use in the project environmental documents (EDs). We will document potential geologic hazards along the project alignment, including faulting and seismicity, seismic shaking, liquefaction potential, slope instability and landslides, earthquake -induced settlements and lateral spreading, dam - inundation and flooding. Findings and conclusions from this study will be included in a Geotechnical Impact Evaluation study, which will be a part of the EIR for CEQA and the EIS for NEPA approval. Deliverables: Draft and Final Summary of Geotechnical Report 165.10.50 Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment The purpose of the Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assess A) is to identify potential and known contaminant sources or recognized environm- con ns (REC), as defined by ASTM E1527-13, for the proposed project. Informatioveloped d the ISA can be used to evaluate human health risk during construction .ng-te risk to uman health and the environment following construction, and possible Iistical implications associated with contaminated sites along the alignment. The ISA will be performed in general acco Standard Practice for Environmental Si Assessment Process E1527-13 ( Caltrans ISA guidance document • Caltrans Project Devel Contamination (2006) an • Volume 1, Cha the Caltrans 2016) • Caltrans ISA Guida •cument (2006) urrent ASTM International (ASTM) s: Phase I Environmental Site ), a d in accordance with the following ederal guidelines: anual, Chapter 18 — Environmental azardous Waste (1999) Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Contamination of ntal Reference Environmental Handbook (last updated • Applicable sections of United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 312) • California Public Resources Code Section 21092.6 The ISA will include an environmental database search, review of historical land use records, review of past environmental site assessments and environmental investigation reports, site reconnaissance, physical agency file review, interviews, and data analysis as follows. Environmental Database Search An environmental database search will be conducted. A search of existing federal, state, local, and tribal databases will be ordered from an environmental database company, and will be searched within the specified minimum search distances established by the ASTM Standard. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 34 of 52 Scope of Work 135 The list of databases that will be searched will include Federal databases such as NPL, CERCLIS, RCRA, Institutional Control/Engineering control registries, ERNS; and State and Tribal databases such as NPL—equivalent, CERCLIS-equivalent, landfill and/or solid waste disposal sites, leaking storage tank lists, registered storage tank lists, IC/EC control registries, voluntary cleanup sites, and Brownfield sites. Historical Land Use Records A review of reasonably ascertainable historical land use records will be conducted for the project alignment dating back to first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier. The purpose in reviewing such records is to determine past uses of the project site that may pose a hazardous waste concern. Historical land use records that will be reviewed for the project, if available, may include one or more of the following: • Aerial photographs • Sanborn fire insurance maps • USGS topographic Maps User -Provided Report A review of any past environmental site assessme provided by RCTC or Caltrans that may be rtinent Lead Investigation Reports, will be conduct Site Reconnaissance A visual survey of the project ali• en d of oining properties will be conducted to identify any potential hazardous was - oncer ,. The ual survey of the project alignment will be conducted by driving the corrido • . ey of properties adjoining the project alignment will be conducted from th- •lic t-of-way and from areas on properties where it is publicly accessible, when feas an• .y . onducted on foot and/or by driving. A visual survey of any private propert : quiring s ac ss will only be conducted if Caltrans, RCTC, and/or others provide acces right -of- :y entry permits. The visual survey would entail observing the general condition o -sit- d to locate potential contaminant sources (e.g. hazardous substances and petroleu •ucts, aboveground and underground storage tanks or vent pipes, fill pipes or access wa s indicating an underground storage tank, odors, pools of liquid, sumps, drums, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) containing equipment, heating and/or cooling system, stains or corrosion, pits, ponds or lagoons, stained soil or pavement, stressed vegetation, solid waste, wastewater (including clarifiers), wells, and dumping). The site reconnaissance will be conducted by a qualified environmental professional as defined in the ASTM Standard. Site conditions of interest will be digitally photographed. environmental investigation reports e project, such as Aerially -Deposited Physical Agency File Review A physical agency file review will be conducted. Reasonably ascertainable file records maintained by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Department of Toxic Substances Control will be requested and reviewed. The agency files will be reviewed for the most recent site status information, the nature and extent of contamination, as well as pertinent land uses, geologic, hydrogeologic, and other information that may be used to assess potential impacts to the project. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 35 of 52 Scope of Work 136 Interviews Interviews with person(s) knowledgeable about the project site such as governmental officials at RCTC, Caltrans, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board will be conducted to obtain information on any past spills or contamination issues associated with the project site and of adjoining properties of interest. Data Analysis If hazardous waste sites are identified within the project study area (via the environmental database search, historical land use information, visual survey, agency file reviews, past environmental site assessment and investigation reports, and/or interviews), an evaluation will be conducted to determine the potential impact to the project and to identify subsequent procedures to further evaluate the extent of contamination and remediation requirements. Report Preparation Three (3) copies of a draft report summarizing our findings, cosions, and recommendations will be prepared and submitted. We will respond to co its on the draft report prior to preparing a final report. The ISA report will identify dat. , . p e to a lack of or inability to obtain information along the alignment. The proposed scope of services does not include t • Research of environmental liens for property to red • Subsurface exploration for hazardous m. -rials • Air, water, asbestos, lead -based paint o piing or analyses • Consideration of possible future cont. o the alignment from adjacent or surrounding facilities or propert • Investigation for radon or me alignment • Investigation for mold, mild .r - ards along the alignment • Handling or disposal . <rd• aterials Assumptions Ass Ha • rdous Waste ISA • Only information r- ved prio o issuance of the report can be included in the evaluation. We do not guaranteracy of information supplied by its sources, but reserve the right to rely on this infion in formulating a professional opinion on the potential for subsurface contamination at the site. • An environmental site assessment cannot wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions (REC) in connection with a property. Performance of this ISA is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a property, and this practice recognizes reasonable limits of time and cost. Deliverables: Draft and Final ISA 165.10.51 Update Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) — no field sampling required We will update the 1-15 CIP aerially deposited lead (ADL) survey report for the proposed widening of 1-15 from SR-74(Central Avenue) to Cajalco Road. ADL is the result of tetra ethyl lead which was added to gasoline to prevent gasoline engine knocking for many years. Lead was present in the vehicle exhaust emissions and is now found in the soils adjacent to major RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 36 of 52 Scope of Work 137 thoroughfares. The following scope was prepared to assess the presence or absence of ADL. Our work is being conducted to evaluate previous laboratory testing results with current thresholds to determine if lead -impacted soil is present and to evaluate the appropriate disposition of soils that will be disturbed during construction of this segment of 1-15. No ADL sampling will be accomplished therefore the following activities are not require: pre -field activities (including preparation of a work plan, a health and safety plan, underground utility clearance and encroachment permit application for ADL field sampling), direct -push soil sampling and analytical laboratory testing for lead. Statistical analysis and report preparation will be completed for the proposed project limits from previous raw sample data obtained under 1-15 CIP while applying current statistical analysis to determine ADL concentrations as hazardous or nonhazardous under current DTSC thresholds. Analyses and Report Preparation We will analyze 2008/2009 laboratory data from 1-15 summarizing results of this soil sampling and analysis 74 to Cajalco Road. We will perform a statistical ev for lead to characterize the soil to an 80% confid e will be performed in accordance with SW-8 Cha conclusions and recommendations and a s_ig professional. Deliverables: Draft and Final ADL Report 165.10.60 Location Hydraulic, Crossings Report (RAS) We will create HEC-RAS hydrauli (13) drainage crossings that in prepared to confirm final d conditions. Hydraulic perform Department, and River will be considered a routing models prep complete these analys analyses for the propose C ' and prepare a letter -report he segment of 1-15 from SR- n of these soil samples tested val. This statistical analysis pte The report will provide ned b, - California registered Floodplai , Rapid Assessment of Stream e existing information to evaluate the thirteen uctures. In addition, hydraulic models will be ssary, to evaluate temporary construction criteria or Caltrans, Riverside County Transportation d Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) the evaluation of results. Previous HEC-RAS and s will be reviewed and updated or revised as necessary to prepare a technical memorandum to document the H&H idening locations and for the Draft and Final Project Report. We will prepare a Floodplai Evaluation based on the Location Hydraulic Study that will be prepared as described above. This scope of work presumes that the proposed widening of 1-15 will not cause a significant floodplain encroachment as defined by 23 C.F.R. 650.105 and is not inconsistent with existing watershed and floodplain management programs. This scope also presumes that the Location Hydraulic Study provided above will contain the requisite information for each alternative as described in Chapter 17 of the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference and in 23 C.F.R. 650A, Section 650.1 11(b)(c). The report will discuss potential impacts and recommend mitigation measures related to floodplain encroachment, flood -related hazards, natural or beneficial floodplain values, access interruption, and the community floodplain development plan. This task will include responding to comments and making revisions as needed for approval of these reports as well as the approval of the draft and final Project Report. Deliverables: Draft and Final Location Hydraulic Study, Floodplain Evaluation and RAS RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 37 of 52 Scope of Work 138 165.10.65 Paleontology Studies The paleontological potential of the project corridor was evaluated based on a brief initial analysis of existing geological maps and familiarity with the paleontology of the project area and vicinity. Geologic mapping indicates that the project corridor and vicinity is underlain by Jurassic and Cretaceous igneous and metamorphic rocks; and Paleocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene sedimentary rocks, which include older Quaternary alluvial deposits and younger Quaternary deposits. Based on the initial analysis, the geologic units that are mapped through the project corridor include igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary units that vary from having very low to very high paleontological potential (Potential Fossil Yield Classification [PFYC] 1 to PFYC 5). Areas where Pleistocene and older marine and non -marine sedimentary deposits are present at the surface or at depth are generally considered to have the highest potential to produce paleontological resources (moderate to very high potential [PFYC 3-5] and unknown potential [PFYC U]). Any recovered fossils from these units could provide i- .ortant information on the paleoenvironment of the region. Holocene -aged sedimentary paleontological potential due to their young age, but are oft geologic units. The majority of the igneous and metamor low paleontological potential (PFYC 1), however, some,�Ctru volcanic tuff) do occasionally produce fossils and ar erefo (PFYC U) until the lithology can be verified. sive ig e assign sits have a low erlain by older, more sensitive re considered to have very us rocks (such as an unknown potential All potential paleontological issues could be !gated t h the environmental review process, and monitoring. Due to the unkno •der very high potential for the project to impact paleontological resources during g , nd • e in sedimentary deposits, at a minimum the following studies will buired ecom ended: • A Paleontological Identific- Rep• 'IR) ich involves the three components of the analysis of existing data inc ► • • - • . , ap review, a literature search, and institutional record se • The analysis of e Paleontological • Following the PER, implemented. pplemented with a pedestrian field survey during the rt (R) phase. gical Mitigation Plan (PMP) will be developed and Deliverables: Draft and Final PIR/PER and Draft and Final PMP 165.10.75 Environmental Commitments Record For the project an environmental commitments record (ECR) will be prepared in a matrix table format and included as an appendix in the Draft and Final EIR/EIS. It is assumed that the ECR will be reviewed as part of the EIR/EIS. The ECR will follow the ECR annotated outline that is available on the Caltrans SER at the time that the ECR is initiated Deliverables: ECR for inclusion in the Draft and Final EIR/EIS and to be reviewed as part of that document. 165.15 Biological Studies We will conduct a literature search, perform field surveys, and prepare a Natural Environmental Study (NES) report for the proposed project analyzing potential impacts to biological resources. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 38 of 52 Scope of Work 139 The report will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans SER guidance and will conform to the most recent Caltrans NES template available at the time that the NES is initiated. The following tasks will be performed during the preparation of this report: Review of Project Information and Applicable Literature - A literature review will be conducted to identify special -status species known or reported from the project area. The literature review will include: 1) Special status species lists from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); 2) Database searches of current versions of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS); 3) The most recent CDFW Annual Report on the status of California's listed Threatened and Endangered plants and animals; 4) Existing documentation of biological resources within the s area including past Natural Environment Studies for Interstate 15; and 5) The Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat se •n Plan (MSHCP). Field Evaluation for Biological Resource Constraints though field for the alignment was previously performed in 2009 and portions of the nme etween Cajalco Road and Weirick Road again in 2013, the study area will need to be uated due to the elapsed time. The project area will be evaluated, with a th• ough wa er covering all portions relevant to potential biological resource constraints. otes will be compiled including conditions, visible disturbance factors, spec!: • .n general biological resources. The site will be evaluated regarding th- •resen •sen -, or likelihood of occurrence for all special -status species (includin• .. ing I, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and vernal pool f. shri ), ha. :ts and general biological resource issues potentially posing a constraint e • - gh applicable laws and regulations. Adjacent areas will also be examined to pr. context. We have attempted to include in this scope any specialized studies tha t li to be required; however, if habitat evaluations and/or focused surveys for . specie he an those included in this scope of work are required, then this will be com icated im-diately and a separate scope and cost for this work will be provided. The study . is as ed to be the proposed limits of disturbance plus a buffer ranging from 100 feet (plys, fairy shrimp) to 300 feet (special -status wildlife species), and out to 500 feet for rowing owl per the MSHCP protocol. This task includes evaluations/determinations for the following resources: • Habitat Evaluation and Focused Survey for Burrowing Owl — Much of the proposed project site and adjacent lands lies within the MSHCP survey area for burrowing owl. All burrowing owl work will follow the MSHCP protocol. The study area for this work is assumed to be the proposed limit of disturbance and a 300-foot buffer (with an additional 200-foot buffer to be evaluated visually), where permission to enter is granted. Potentially suitable habitat will be mapped to determine survey areas. Once burrows are mapped, a 4-visit focused survey will be performed. This survey was must be performed between March 15 and August 30. All potential habitat will be surveyed 4 times as required by the protocol. Results of the focused surveys will be presented in the NES. • Least Bell's Vireo/Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat Assessment and Focused Surveys — Qualified biologists will conduct U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol surveys for Southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo. A total of eight survey visits for least Bell's vireo and a total of five survey visits for Southwestern willow flycatcher will be RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 39 of 52 Scope of Work 140 conducted per USFWS protocol. When possible, surveys for the Southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo will be conducted during the same site visit. The area to be surveyed will be suitable habitat within the identified direct impact area related to the proposed Limit of Disturbance and up to a 300-foot buffer, as accessible. The results of the habitat assessment and focused survey will be directly incorporated into the NES. • Habitat Evaluation and Focused Survey for Special Status Plants — The project is located within or adjacent to a MSHCP survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Although the Limits of Disturbance are not presently known, the survey area passes over parts of the southern alignment and is directly adjacent to the ROW in much of the remaining alignment. There is also potentially -suitable habitat for other rare plant species not covered by the MSHCP that need to be addressed through CEQA. The study area for this work will be the proposed limits of disturbance and a 100-foot buffer. Field survey methods will be consistent with the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009) and MSHCP protocol. The survey will occur wthe window of April through September to adequately capture the blooming window. erence populations for special - status plant species may require to be visited prior to ' of field surveys to the extent possible to validate survey timing and document I• varia in flowering phenology. If reference populations are visited and the subject : nts are det ned to not be in bloom, then an additional visit may be required t• -ter Botanical species data will be collected wit transect coverage surveys. Species names wi Manual Higher Plants of California, Se • dition be documented in the NES. • Fairy Shrimp — Focused Habitat the project schedule, we will c fall 2019 (October-Decemb including road ruts, cattle p Riverside fairy shrimp Strept lynchi) occur in a v We will map basi used for subseq dry season samplin the ap ropriate survey timing. roject footprint using 100 percent recorded according to The Jepson dwin, et. al., 2012). The results will luatio �' +eas• ally -Inundated Basins. Depending on up t. o surveys in winter 2020 (January -March), or urvey area for seasonally inundated basins ols/alkali playas. Note that the federally -listed alus woottoni) and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta ral basins and are not restricted to natural vernal pools. meter -accuracy GPS device. This information will be sins, such as during dry winter season conditions or during • Focused Dry and Wet Fairy Shrimp Surveys — A protocol -level survey to determine absence of listed branch •ods in potential basins involves one wet and one dry season survey. We will carry out a complete fairy shrimp survey on up to eight seasonally -inundated depressions. If additional basins are discovered during the habitat assessment, these additional basins can be included in the survey at an additional cost. Surveys will be conducted following the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2015). As of January 2019, it is too late to perform a valid wet season survey in the winter of 2018-2019, so this proposal includes a dry season survey followed by a wet season survey assuming the project schedule begins in fall of 2019. Results of this work will be integrated into the NES report. o Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey. We will complete a protocol USFWS dry season survey for listed fairy shrimp within up to eight basins or ruts. Soil will be collected during the dry season while all basins are dry. Soil will be processed to collect any potential fairy shrimp cysts and inspected under a microscope by a biologist possessing the additional terms and conditions from USFWS for RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 40 of 52 Scope of Work 141 processing, isolating and identifying cysts. A required USFWS survey report will be prepared and submitted to the USFWS per the biologist's permit conditions. o Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Survey. We will complete a protocol USFWS wet season survey for listed fairy shrimp on up to eight basins. This cost assumes up to 22 site visits to conduct wet season surveys following protocol methodology. The new 2015 Guidance requires post -rain inspections for ponding and weekly surveys when basins are inundated. Surveys will be conducted during appropriate conditions between October 2019 and May 2020. Exceptionally wet winters could require additional survey effort. If additional basins are observed, additional costs may be required. A required USFWS survey report will be prepared and submitted to the USFWS per the biologist's permit conditions. • Habitat Evaluation for Bats and Colonial Nesting Birds — Qualified biologists will survey the project disturbance limits and a 100-foot buffer to identify any suitable habitat that may support bats and/or colonial nesting birds. As part of the habitat assessment, qualified bat biologists familiar with bat species with potential to occur survey the project disturbance limits prior to construction and night roosting as well as bat maternity roosting. the NES. Bat Emergence Survey - Following the bat habitat e identify locations with suitable habitat for bats utili The survey will include a combination of exit co acoustic equipment will be positioned at locons det Surveys will be started a half hour prior to d or until activity has slowed or visibility is lost be utilized to record any bats presen qualified biologist to identify any be incorporated into the NES. five (5) structures that have structure so surveys are n Jurisdictional Delin We will delineate all po 50-foot buffer. As part of Delineation and prior biologi e vicinity of the project will ssess the potential for bat day 'II be mapped and included in ation, a bat ey will be conducted to vis -xit counts and acoustic detectors. d acoustic surveys. Biologists and ed during the bat habitat evaluation. d for at least 3 hours after sunset Pettersson bat recording units will iden on pu poses. The calls will be analyzed by a ed u► .y the recorders. The methods and results will d for ergence surveys will be conducted at up to sence. Presence is not expected at every or every structures on the corridor. features within the proposed disturbance footprint plus a e will review the draft 1-15 Corridor Improvement urvey results (2011), current and historical aerial photographs, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil mapping data, USGS topographical maps, National Hydrography Dataset, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory data prior to conducting delineation fieldwork and in the process of determining jurisdictional status of features identified in the field. All potential aquatic features identified during the literature review and within the proposed disturbance footprint plus a 50-foot buffer will be investigated on foot. When linear potential WOUS are encountered, widths will be recorded (in feet) on 1:2,400-scale aerial maps with topographic contours overlaid based upon visible landmarks. Where notable features such as culverts may be observed in the field but not visible on the aerial photograph, they would recorded with an ESRI Collector for ArcGIS application on an iPad connected to a global position system recorder with submeter accuracy. The Ordinary High Water Mark will be measured at locations where transitions were apparent. Indicators of an OHWM and wetland would be based upon 33 CFR 328.3(e) and the methods outlined in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the USACE RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 41 of 52 Scope of Work 142 Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008a), and A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008c). Other data collected will include photographs, bank -to -bank width, bank height and morphology, substrate type, and all vegetation within and adjacent to the feature. Features potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction will be mapped from top of bank to top of bank and examined for the presence of riparian vegetation. All data collected in the field will be incorporated into GIS along with basemap data. The GIS data will then be used to quantify the extent of potential jurisdictional features within the jurisdictional study area and potential impacts to these features. Data collected during the delineation survey will be transmitted in a Delineation Report prepared in accordance with Caltrans, USACE and CDFW standards. This task includes up to two revisions in footprint and 2 rounds of comments (one by RCTC and one by Caltrans); up to 10 non -linear features and 75 linear features requiring delineation ; all necessary rights -of -entry provided by RCTC. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Prese will impact riparian/riverine resources, which will require report will follow the RCA requirements and will includ resources existing conditions, proposed impacts (di finding of equivalency or superior preservation. As will be developed in coordination with the Regional agencies to determine potential mitigation o• s for Criteria Areas, and CDFW reserve lands. T conference calls with stakeholders, and simil Western Riverside MSHCP Joint complete the Joint Project R Conservation Authority (RCA) necessary during the pro with RCA and the wil application fee is as DBESP) Report - The project ES Eder the MSHCP. The roject de .tion, biological and direct), gation for impacts, and of task, the equivalency component ation Authority and resource is on Reserve Assembly lands, IS analysis, meetings and ies. pplication - We will prepare a cover letter and st/application for submittal to the Regional e will coordinate with RCTC, and RCA as od. This task also includes participation in one meeting FWS and CDFW) as part of the review process. No Agency Coordination - -will .nduct meetings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Depa _ of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), U.S. Army Corps of • ineers (USACE), and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to provide preliminary project information, solicit concerns, and discuss agency requirements and biological survey plans and schedule. Discussions will also include project impacts and potential mitigation ratios/approaches. In addition to the DBESP and JPR related meetings it is assumed that up to eight (8) meetings with resource agencies will be conducted. Tree Inventory - A Tree Inventory will be performed in the proposed right of way (ROW). All trees within the proposed ROW with a one inch caliper diameter or higher will be inventoried. Metal tags will be placed on each tree inventoried with a unique ID number. The location of each tree will be recorded using a sub -meter Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and cataloged according to the unique ID number from the metal tags. The following information will be recorded for each inventoried tree: species; number of trunks; diameter at breast height (DBH) of each trunk; estimated height; estimated canopy width; health (1 — 5 scale); and aesthetics (1 — 5 scale). RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 42 of 52 Scope of Work 143 Based on analysis of aerial photography, there are an estimated 600 trees in the project area that will be part of the inventory. The inventory will not include species such as tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), or any similar species that is generally considered to have a shrub growth form, which may have main stems with a caliper of greater than one inch. All trees will be accessed to the extent feasible; however, trees that cannot be safely accessed will be marked using an offset GPS coordinate and estimated values for DBH. Any tree surveyed in this manner will be noted in the database. For crew safety, all surveys will be conducted in a marked vehicle with overhead caution lights, and trees will only be accessed from locations where the vehicle can be safely pulled off of the active roadway. It is assumed that trees overhanging the ROW with trunk(s) outside the ROW will not be inventoried and that no more than 650 trees will need to be inventoried. In addition, it is assumed the following areas will be excluded from the inventory: • The area between the NB off ramp to Lake Street and Walker Canyon Road where trees are extensive and not likely to be impacted by the project (low lyi► topography separated by a guardrail) • SB on ramp to 1-15 south of Lake Street (Temescal W likely to be impacted within jurisdictional aquatic res Obtaining permits would happen during a later ph not included in this scope of work. It is expected t since box culverts already extend completely acro deck widening will typically occur within the - ay me Deliverables: Draft and Final NES; Deline USACE and CDFW standards; and DBES 165.15.10 Wetland Studies It is assumed that wetlands wi that an evaluation of wetlands analysis and LEDPA wi of a Habitat Mitigati Section 401 Water Alteration Agreement identification of potential PA/ED to anticipate permit n e trees are prolific and not th- project a : therefore permitting is ill not impact WRMSHCP linkages fisting State R/W and existing bridge ared in accordance with Caltrans, r will be avoided by the proposed project and ance a ernatives and that the preparation of a 404b1 This scope and cost does not include the preparation ro► ,m (HMMP), which would be prepared as part of the tion, Section 404 permit, and/or Section 1602 Streambed rocess during the next phase of the Project. Preliminary s or waters of the U.S./State will be conducted as part of s that will need to be obtained during the final design phase of the project. Future permit needs and monitoring efforts will be included in the PA/ED Risk Matrix in the Project Report. Deliverables: Updates / Entries in the Project Risk Matrix 165.15.15 Resource Agency Permit Related Coordination The most important portions of the assessment will be the discussions of potential project effects on federally listed threatened/endangered species and proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts. We will base these discussions on our field studies, literature research, and correspondence with wildlife agency personnel and other knowledgeable individuals. It is unknown whether permits will be required and/or the extent of any permitting efforts. Permits are not assumed or included in this scope of work. Time has been included for preliminary coordination efforts with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 43 of 52 Scope of Work 144 Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Game. If permits are identified as being needed then it is assumed that those would be prepared and processed under a separate project phase. The preparation of permit applications and processing are not included in this scope of work. Deliverables: Preliminary coordination efforts with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Game. 165.20 Cultural Resource Studies The following subsections are incorporated within the following scope. • 165.20.05 Archaeological Survey • 165.20.05.05 Area of Potential Effects • 165.20.05.10 Native American Consultation • 165.20.05.15 Records and Literature Search • 165.20.05.20 Field Survey • 165.20.05.25 Archaeological Survey • 165.20.20.20 Bridge Evaluation • 165.20.25.15 Historic Propertyvey Repo The proposed project improvements will be sub National Historic Preservation Act. This requires c historic properties including archaeological - istoric in the National Register of Historic Places administers Section 106 compliance on b conform to specifications contain January 1, 2014, cultural resourc the First Amended Programm Advisory Council on Historic Pr the California Departme National Historic Pre Highway Program I mpliance with Section 106 of the ration of potential project effects to sources listed in or eligible for listing ria listed in 36 CFR800. Caltrans and requires that documentation Calt _ Standard Environmental Reference. As of mus a prepared and processed in accordance with nt a ng the Federal Highway Administration, the lifomia State Historic Preservation Officer, and rtation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal -Aid We shall conduct a re. •s s- h at the appropriate Information Center of the California Historical Resources Infor ystem. This records search will consult California's database of previous studies and prey!. sly recorded sites within the proposed project area and within a 0.5 mile radius, per Caltrans guidelines. Historic maps and photographs shall also be reviewed, if available. We shall establish an Area of Potential Effect (APE) map in consultation with the County and Caltrans for obtaining Caltrans approval. The map shall provide the survey boundaries for cultural resources to be evaluated during project studies. The APE map shall be based on the total anticipated disturbance footprint associated with project activities (e.g., road widening/interchange construction, staging areas and other temporary construction easements, detours, drainage facilities, temporary construction activities, and parcels containing impacted structures, if any). We will also contact the Native American Heritage Commission and request a review of the Sacred Lands File and will coordinate with Caltrans for consultation with Native American groups and other interested parties under Section 106 and Assembly Bill 52 to request information regarding the types of potential cultural resources in the study area. Consultation will be conducted in accordance with appropriate current state and federal regulations. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 44 of 52 Scope of Work 145 Following completion of the record search/review, we shall conduct a field survey of the APE for archaeological resources. It is assumed that HDR's right of way consultant will be responsible for obtaining access for conducting the surveys. This scope of work assumes that no archaeological sites will be identified in the APE and that no testing and/or evaluation will be required. It is anticipated that an Archaeological Survey Report (Finding of No Archaeological Resources Present) will be prepared and no additional documentation will be required. The ASR shall include sensitivity of the project area for Native American resources, project area ethnography and prehistoric and historic context, Native American coordination and consultation and detailed results of the records search. A qualified architectural historian will conduct a field survey of the proposed project area and will document the results in a memo. It is assumed that a Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) will not be required, as there are not any anticipated built environment resources, other than Category 5 (NRHP ineligible bridges) in the project area. Following completion and approval of the APE and detail- reports discussed above, a summary document (the HPSR) shall be generated in ordance with Caltrans/FHWA standards for Section 106 compliance with the NHPA. It i• ti ed that the proposed project shall result in an HPSR with a finding that no prope s eligibly •r listing on the NRHP or CRHR are present within the project's APE. Deliverables: Draft and Final APE map, ASR . of No Archaeological Resources Present), HRER (Finding of No Historic Resrces Pr t), and HPSR (no properties requiring evaluation finding). 165.25 Draft Environmental Docum As previously described it is environmental document for t outline on the Caltrans SER t copy of the Draft Environ Checklist. It is assum preparing the associ the Caltrans five step Deliverables: combined EIR/EIS will be the appropriate /EIS will be prepared using the annotated he time that the document is initiated. Each ent will include External Quality Control Form and NEPA at prepares each technical study will be responsible for R/EIS. The following submittals are assumed to meet Draft EIR/EIS (1) (electronically first to RCTC and then to Caltrans) Draft EIR/EIS (2) and Comment Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) Draft EIR/EIS (3) and Comment Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) Draft EIR/EIS (4) and Comment Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) Draft EIR/EIS (5) and Comment Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) Final Draft EIR/EIS for approval to circulate and Comment/Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) 25 hard copies and one electronic (pdf) final Draft EIR/EIS for availability (this includes the 15 copies for submittal to the State Clearinghouse) Assumptions • A No Build and two (2) build alternatives will be considered in the analysis. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 45 of 52 Scope of Work 146 " C u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s a s s e s s m e n t s w i l l b e p r e p a r e d f o r e a c h a p p l i c a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s o u r c e . T h e s e a n a l y s e s w i l l b e c o n s o l i d a t e d i n t o a C u m u l a t i v e I m p a c t s A n a l y s i s s e c t i o n o f t h e E I R / E I S . " U p t o f i v e ( 5 ) g e n e r a l a r e a s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s o u r c e s ( e . g . , t r a f f i c , b i o l o g y , c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , v i s u a l , c o m m u n i t y , w a t e r r e s o u r c e s , e t c . ) w i l l b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s a n a l y s i s . U p t o t e n ( 1 0 ) i n d i v i d u a l m e e t i n g s m a y b e r e q u i r e d w i t h t e c h n i c a l s p e c i a l i s t s t o c o m p l e t e t h e c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s a n a l y s i s . " U p t o t h r e e ( 3 ) r o u n d s o f r e v i s i o n w i l l b e r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e C u m u l a t i v e I m p a c t s S e c t i o n o f t h e E I R / E I S . D e l i v e r a b l e s : C o n s o l i d a t e d c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s a n a l y s i s f o r t h e s u b j e c t a r e a s f o r w h i c h p o t e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s w e r e i d e n t i f i e d . 1 6 5 . 2 5 . 1 0 S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) / 6 ( f ) E v a l u a t i o n I t i s a s s u m e d t h a t a l l i m p r o v e m e n t s w o u l d o c c u r w i t h i n t h e e x i s ' r i g h t o f w a y a n d t h a t i m p a c t s t o S e c t i o n 6 ( f ) p r o p e r t i e s w o u l d n o t o c c u r a n d t h a t n o 6 ( f l u a t i o n w i l l b e r e q u i r e d . I t i s a s s u m e d t h a t u p t o o n e S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) p r o p e r t y ( B u t t e r f i e l d n r a i l ) w i l l b e a d d r e s s e d . I t i s a s s u m e d t h a t a d e m i n i m i s 4 ( f ) w i l l b e a p p r o p r i a t e a n u l l S e c 4 ( f ) e v a l u a t i o n w i l l n o t b e r e q u i r e d . T h e S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) d e m i n i m i s w i l l b e d o c u m d w i t h i n t h e o p r i a t e A p p e n d i x i n t h e E I R / E I S a n d w e w i l l w o r k w i t h C a l t r a n s a n d R f o l l n g i d e n t i ' c a t i o n o f t h e p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e t o o b t a i n t h e d e m i n i m i s c o n c u r r e n c e I t h e a g e n c y t h a t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e 4 ( f ) r e s o u r c e . D e l i v e r a b l e s : S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) / 6 ( f ) A p p e n d i x i n 1 6 5 . 2 5 . 2 5 P r e p a r e S e c o n d a n W e w i l l r e v i s e t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i C a l t r a n s , a n d w i l l s u b m i t r e v i e w . T h e s e A d m i n i s a s w e l l a s t h e E x e c w i l l r e v i s e t h e d o c u c o n c u r r e n t R C T C a n d s u b m i t t a l . a l l f a t i o n i s a s s u m e d ) t i v e D r a f t s o f E I R / E I S s e d o n c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d f r o m R C T C , a n d T h i r d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D r a f t E I R / E I S t o R C T C f o r t h e i r e E I R / E I S w i l l i n c l u d e a l l i n f o r m a t i o n d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , a n d E C R . O n r e c e i p t o f c o m m e n t s f r o m R C T C , w e l y a n d w i l l s u b m i t t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D r a f t E I R / E I S f o r i e w . A d r a f t F H W A c h e c k l i s t w i l l b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e t h i r d W e w i l l r e v i s e t h e d o c u m e n t b a s e d o n t h e c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d f r o m R C T C , C a l t r a n s , a n d F H W A o n t h e t h i r d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D r a f t E I R / E I S a n d w i l l p r e p a r e t h e P r o p o s e d D r a f t E I R / E I S f o r r e v i e w b y R C T C . A f t e r r e v i e w b y R C T C , w e w i l l r e v i s e t h e P r o p o s e d D r a f t E I R / E I S a n d s u b m i t i t t o R C T C , C a l t r a n s , a n d F H W A r e q u e s t i n g a p p r o v a l t o c i r c u l a t e t h e d o c u m e n t f o r p u b l i c r e v i e w . T h e F H W A C h e c k l i s t w i l l b e i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s u b m i t t a l . D e l i v e r a b l e s : E l e c t r o n i c r e v i e w s w i l l b e a c c o m p l i s h e d f o r t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D r a f t o f E I R / E I S 1 6 5 . 2 5 . 3 0 E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o o r d i n a t i o n W e w i l l m a n a g e p r e p a r a t i o n o f p r o j e c t - s p e c i f i c e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s o u r c e s , s c h e d u l e s , a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a n d w i l l c o o r d i n a t e a n d r e v i e w a l l t e c h n i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e s p r i o r t o i n c l u s i o n i n t h e E I R / E I S . C o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h C a l t r a n s a n d F H W A t o o b t a i n a p p r o v a l t o c i r c u l a t e t h e E I R / E I S a r e a l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h i s t a s k . A c t i v i t i e s u n d e r t h i s t a s k w i l l b e p e r f o r m e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e C a l t r a n s D i s t r i c t 8 E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l P l a n . R C T C : 1 - 1 5 E x p r e s s L a n e s P r o j e c t S o u t h e r n E x t e n s i o n P a g e 4 6 o f 5 2 S c o p e o f W o r k 1 4 7 Deliverables: Establish and maintain schedule of environmental technical studies and environmental document review 175 CIRCULATE DED AND SELECT PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 175.05 DED Circulation As part of the overall public outreach efforts, we will prepare a distribution list for the Draft EIR/EIS and will prepare the draft Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability (NOC/NOA). We will distribute the NOC and Draft EIR/EI; Caltrans will be responsible for publishing the NOA in the Federal Register. The Draft EIR/EIS distribution list will be based on the mailing list compiled for the scoping process and updated as appropriate based on correspondence received during preparation of the Draft EIR/EIS. We will reproduce the Draft EIR/EIS and Technical Studies fo blic circulation via three media: 1) hard copy, 2) CD and 3) .PDF format for uploading to th 175.05.05 Master Distribution and Invitation Lists We will utilize the mailing/distribution list prepared for inclusion in the Draft EIR/EIS. 'ned by o r outreach consultant Deliverables: Input to individuals and gr• be in• •ed on the distribution list. 175.05.10 Notices Regarding Public Hea : n • ailability of Draft Environmental Document We will prepare the Notice of A Availability for publication in th EPA who publish the EIS Notice is assumed to be held, prior to the public he Document Transmitt Deliverables: Draft and Final NOA/NPH (a ed to be transmitted electronically with no hard copies) Draft and Final NOA (assumed to be transmitted electronically with no hard copies) Draft and Final Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal for submittal to SCH ublic Hearing (NOA/NPH) and a Notice of Caltrans transmits the draft EIR/EIS to U.S. !lability in the Federal Register). Since a public hearing o need to be published a second time at least one week epare the Notice of Completion and Environmental the State Clearinghouse along with copies of the EIR/EIS. 175.05.15 DED Publication and Circulation We will post the NOA/NPH at the Riverside County Clerk's office (a $50 filing fee has been assumed), and will send the necessary copies to the State Clearinghouse along with the Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal form. It is assumed that the technical studies will not be included in the availability but copies will be available if requested by anyone during the public availability period. We will also distribute hardcopies of the document and NOA/NPH to the availability locations (Caltrans, RCTC, libraries). A copy of the NOA/NPH to property owners and residences within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project Deliverables: RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 47 of 52 Scope of Work 148 Distribution of Draft EIR/EIS to availability locations Filing with Riverside County Clerk Distribution of Draft EIR/EIS to SCH (15 copies) & Local Distribution (10 copies) 175.10 Public Hearing We will assist and attend two public hearings during the public review period for the Draft EIR/EIS. A third meeting may be held if deemed necessary by RCTC in conjunction with a regularly occurring meeting held for outreach with Temecula Valley residents. We will be responsible for coordinating and conducting the hearings and for preparing the necessary handouts, materials, and exhibits for the hearings. We will provide public hearing materials which include: • Mailing/Distribution lists • Hearing materials • Reservations for Hearing location • Documentation of attendance • Recording of comments • Public Hearing Plan • Court Reporter • Record of Public Hearing • Refreshments • Accommodations for special needs • Any other items or logistics relat- - the p ''" eanngs 360 Degree Video Computer generated 3D comp corridor from south of State Rout created. We will align t that they can be mer 3D graphics will incl structures as proposed The video will be formatte playback by manipulating an improvements of select portions of the 1-15 terchange to the Magnolia Avenue interchange will be ovement with 360 degree panoramic video imagery so sual perspective of the proposed improvements. The lane striping, barriers, overhead signage and bridge preferred alternative. a viewer can observe the visible portion of the video ropriately equipped smartphone during playback. Recommended locations included are: • Northern Terminus both directions - up to 4 miles • One Midpoint access location to show Ingress/Egress • Southern terminus both directions - up to 4 miles • One additional location (as determined by the team or RCTC as a point of interest) Deliverables: Attendance up to three (3) public hearings for public circulation of the Draft Environmental Document Review and input to public scoping materials 360 degree video at up to four locations (specified above) RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 48 of 52 Scope of Work 149 175.15 Public Comment Responses and Correspondence At the close of the public availability period for the Draft EIR/EIS, We will review and respond to all comments received. In addition, we will attend a meeting with RCTC and Caltrans staff to review any written comments on the Draft Environmental Document that were received and to discuss potential responses to these comments, if the comments received warrant such a meeting. Otherwise, the comments will be responded to and incorporated directly into the Final EIR/EIS. If an excessive number of comments, comments from lawyers, comments requiring legal evaluation, or comments requiring new or extensive analyses are received then this will be discussed with RCTC. Deliverables: Responses to comments (included in Final EIR/EIS) 175.20 Project Preferred Alternative Working with the PDT the preferred alternative will be identifie nd documented in the Final EIR/EIS. No deliverables are associated with this task information will be directly incorporated into the Final EIR/EIS. Deliverables: Information regarding identification o eferred al ative (included in Final EIR/EIS) 180 PREPARE AND APPROVE P, 180.05 Final Project Report 180.05.05 Updated Draft Projec Upon completion of the Res Project Report will be updated review and comment p Caltrans for review comment review w provide appropriate re and approval. Deliverables: Draft and Fina roject Report on the Environmental Document, the Draft any . nges to the project that resulted from the public Final Project Report will be submitted to RCTC and ing receipt of one consolidated set of comments, a hel• with the respondents to review their comments and al Project Report will be prepared and submitted for review 180.05.10 Approved Project Report Once the Final Project Report has been submitted for review and approval, the project manager or his designee will work with RCTC and Caltrans to obtain the appropriate signatures. If issues or questions arise during the approval phase, the HDR team will work with RCTC and/or Caltrans staff to answer any remaining questions, provide additional information, and obtain signatures as appropriate. Up to three (3) submittals (two review cycles) of the Final Project Report are anticipated. Deliverables: Signed Project Report 180.05.15 Updated Storm Water Data Report The Storm Water Data Report will be reviewed for consistency with current requirements and updated to incorporate necessary changes for the selected alternative only. Current Project RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 49 of 52 Scope of Work 150 Report level requirements are anticipated for this effort. Up to three submittals (two review cycles) are anticipated. Deliverables: Storm Water Data Report 180.05.20 Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) for Selected Alternative We will prepare geometric approval drawings (GAD) at a scale of 1" = 50' consistent with the Caltrans District 8 GAD strip plot format for the selected/preferred alternative from the Project Report. The GAD will include existing topographic and planimetric mapping, right-of-way lines, I- 15 centerline, geometric layout, typical sections, traffic volumes, design designation, and a signature block. We will design roadway geometry including horizontal and vertical geometry for ramps, connectors and cross streets, including profile and superelevation diagrams. Profiles and superelevation diagrams will be provided for the areas of mainline widening based on aerial topographic mapping and record drawing information. Conce• al grading using 2:1 or 4:1 slopes will be developed to establish preliminary right-of-way s. Typical cross sections will be prepared to illustrate lane a o. -rs in the lane configurations and other basic cross sectional data. Truck turnitemplat ill only be provided at intersections modified by the project. Up to four (4) submittals (three review cycles) of the anticipated. Deliverables: Geometric Approval Drawing 180.10.05 Approved Final Environmental We will prepare a Screencheck Fin include public comments on the the comments. Each submit (QC) Certification and Environ RCTC and Caltrans of th Administrative Final El forwarded for RCTC and an Administrati matrix, and forwarded t Branch Chief Review. Fo /EIS T ill i•-ntify the preferred alternative and will EIS . • responses on environmental issues raised in nal E EIS will include the External Quality Control (ED) Review Checklist. Following review by ck Final EIR/EIS, the document will be revised and an ubmitted, along with a Comment/Response matrix, and . Following this review the document will be revised (2) will be prepared along with the Comment/Response Caltrans for their NEPA Quality Control and Environmental is review the document will be revised and an Administrative Final EIR/EIS (3) will be pre • ed along with the Comment/Response matrix, and forwarded to RCTC and Caltrans for concurrence and this document will be forwarded by the Caltrans District office to Caltrans Headquarters for Division of Environmental Analysis (DEA) and Legal Reviews. To reduce iterations of the document, we will conduct a revision workshop with RCTC and Caltrans to facilitate the next review. Once revisions are incorporated into the document that address comments received from the Caltrans Headquarters and Caltrans Legal Reviews, a Pre -Approval Final EIR/EIS will be prepared along with the Comment/Response matrix, and forwarded for concurrence by RCTC and Caltrans District and Headquarters. Once concurred upon, the Final EIR/EIS signature page will be submitted to Caltrans for signature. Upon signature of the cover sheet and approval to circulate, we will provide hard and electronic copies of the Final EIR/EIS. The electronic copy will be in Adobe Acrobat PDF format to allow for publication on the project website by our outreach consultant. We will utilize the update RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 50 of 52 Scope of Work 151 mailing list (with commenter names and other changes), as prepared and maintained by our outreach consultant, for the Final EIR/EIS and distribute the document. This scope of work assumes that we will prepare the cumulative impacts portion of the Draft EIR/EIS and will provide that for the inclusion in the document. Deliverables: Final EIR/EIS (1) (electronically first to RCTC and then to Caltrans) Final EIR/EIS (2) and Comment Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) Final EIR/EIS (3) and Comment Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) Final EIR/EIS (4) and Comment Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) Final EIR/EIS (5) and Comment Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) Final EIR/EIS for approval to circulate and Comment/Response Matrix (electronically to RCTC and Caltrans) 25 hard copies and one electronic (pdf) Final EIR/EIS for availab, 25 CD's with a PDF of Volumes 1 and 2 if needed 180.10.05.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation We will review comments from Section 4(f) review ncies and ral comments from the public review of the EIR/EIS and Section 4(f) St ent. a Secti 4(f) Statement will be revised to incorporate comments as needed. Assumptions • Limited additional technical analysis comments on the Section 4(f) Sta identified between publication • No new project alternatives • Up to three revisions of Cumulative Impacts Deliverables: Final 180.10.05.20 Findings We will prepare the Findin. Fact in compliance with CEQA and the Caltrans SER. The Findings will be submitted along with, and reviewed with, the Final EIR/EIS. Deliverables: Findings (to be submitted with, and reviewed with, the Final EIR/EIS) e required to respond to public ion 4(f) resources are assumed to be EIS and preparation of the Final EIR.EIS ance alternatives will be evaluated. be prepared to produce the Final EIR/EIS 180.10.05.25 Statement of Overriding Considerations We will prepare the Statement of Overriding Considerations in compliance with CEQA and the Caltrans SER. The Statement of Overriding Considerations will be submitted along with, and reviewed with, the Final EIR/EIS. Deliverables: Statement of Overriding Considerations (to be submitted with, and reviewed with, the Final EIR/EIS) 180.10.05.30 CEQA Certification We will prepare the CEQA Certification in compliance with CEQA and the Caltrans SER. The CEQA Certification will be submitted along with, and reviewed with, the Final EIR/EIS. RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 51 of 52 Scope of Work 152 Deliverables: CEQA Certification (to be submitted with, and reviewed with, the Final EIR/EIS) In addition, the following services will be completed as part of the Final EIR/EIS task and these services correspond to WBS 180.10.05.70 Mitigation Measures 180.10.10 Pubic Distribution of FED and Respond to Comments A Notice of Availability for the Final environmental document will be prepared for circulation of the FED. Noticing, notice publication, and distribution of the document will be prepared. Following the public availability we will respond to any comments received and these responses will be incorporated into the Record of Decision (ROD). It is assumed that the responses will be reviewed as part of the ROD. If an excessive number of comments, comments from lawyers, comments requiring legal evaluation, or comments requiring new or extensive analyses are received then this will be discussed with RCTC. Deliverables: Notice of Availability & Draft and Final respons- to comments 180.15 Completed Environmental Document We will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) that will inclu, as •ropriate, identification of the selected alternative, the alternatives considered, the r nale fo -ntification of the selected alternative, summary of beneficial environmental i ts, summar adverse environmental impacts and mitigation, monitoring and enforcem pro , and response to comments on the final EIS. The ROD will be submitted to RC then to Caltrans for review and for publication in the Federal Register by FHWA to be tra fitted by Caltrans). Deliverables: Draft and Final Record of Dec 180.15.05 Record of Decision (N We will prepare a draft and fin and for signature no sooner tha on (ROD) for review by RCTC and Caltrans ter publication of the Final EIS notice. Deliverables: Draft and D hardcopies each and PDF of final) 180.15.10 Notice o (C A) We will prepare the - of De mination (NOD) in compliance with CEQA. It is assumed that we will file the NOD • th- office of Planning and Research (OPR) on behalf of Caltrans. The NOD would also be p. : with the Riverside County Clerk (a $50 filing fee has been assumed). Along with the NOD a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) filing fee would also be filed. The CDFG filing fee has been included in the submitted cost estimate and is assumed to not exceed $3,500. Deliverables: Draft and Final NOD (submitted electronically for review) and hardcopy to the State Clearinghouse RCTC: 1-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Page 52 of 52 Scope of Work 153 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [attached behind this page] 17336.03400\31233218.1 154 TASK 2019 2nd 3rd 2020 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 2021 nd 2022 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 2023 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 2024 1st 2nd 3rd 4th PROJECT MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING Risk Management TRAFFIC' ENVIRONMENTAL STAFFING PLAN FTE 30 20 10 1 LL VVkshop Manage Delivery Schedule Coordination with Toll & Revenue Study Toll Policy Report Mapping & Survey VA Study Preliminary Capital Costs Ingress/Egress Locations Early Noise Barrier Identification Treatment& Staging Areas Data 1 Volumes Forecast Early Operations Analysis 1 1 Purpose & Need 1 1 TOAR Alternatives Development & Scoping Early Outreach & Pub Scoping Mtg. Finalize Alt(s) COP Info Mtg. Env Surveys Draft Cost Estimates GAD & Design Std. Decision Doc (DSDD) Operations Approval 1 1 NTP #1 Technical .odies COP, M' COP Footpre " DD COP Trafr COP Enviro. 'ffltal NTP #2 rr • • • • • • • • ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ Prepare Draft Project Repoli Noise Barrier Voting Final Costs Estim Prepare Final Project Repo ELPSE Pub.Hearing Prepare Draft Env Doc. & Circulate sign & Construction • • • • Final Env Doc & NOD M M tes • EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION PROVISIONS [attached behind this page] 17336.03400\31233218.1 156 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION SUMMARY SHEET FIRM COST HDR Engineering $15,544,309.49 A -Tech Consulting $157,964.21 CityWorks $811,676.51 Fehr & Peers $817,680.16 Guida Surveying $373,596.68 HNTB $314,738.95 ICF $4,472,410.21 IDC Consulting Engineer $233,473.57 Leighton Consulting $410,764.62 Michael Baker International $371,485.75 Paleo Solutions $11,104.15 The Alliance Group $2,207,301.40 Westbound Communications $401,015.29 SUBTOTAL $26,127,520.99 OTHER DIRECT COSTS $192,490.00 TOTAL COST PROPOSAL $26,320,010.99 17336.03400\31233218.1 157 EXHIBIT "D" FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FHWA AND CALTRANS REQUIREMENTS [attached behind this page] 17336.03400\31233218.1 158 1. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE. A. Consultant's signature affixed herein shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that CONSULTANT has, unless exempt, complied with, the nondiscrimination program requirements of Government Code Section 12990 and Title 2, California Administrative Code, Section 8103. B. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant and its subconsultants shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (e.g., cancer), age (over 40), marital status, and denial of family care leave. Consultant and subconsultants shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. Consultant and subconsultants shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12990 (a-f) et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated there under (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code Section 12990 (a-f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, are incorporated into this Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Consultant and its subconsultants shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other Agreement. C. If this Agreement is federally funded, the Consultant shall comply with regulations relative to Title VI (nondiscrimination in federally -assisted programs of the Department of Transportation — Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21 - Effectuation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act). Title VI provides that the recipients of federal assistance will implement and maintain a policy of nondiscrimination in which no person in the state of California shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or subject to discrimination under any program or activity by the recipients of federal assistance or their assignees and successors in interest. D. If this Agreement is federally funded, the Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it during the Agreement shall act in accordance with Title VI. Specifically, the Consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability in the selection and retention of Subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The Consultant shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the U.S. DDT's Regulations, including employment practices when the Agreement covers a program whose goal is employment. 2. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION 17336.03400\31233218.1 159 CONSULTANT's signature affixed herein, shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that CONSULTANT has complied with Title 2 CFR, Part 180, "OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government wide Debarment and Suspension (nonprocurement)", which certifies that he/she or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager, is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of ineligibility by any federal agency; has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded, or determined ineligible by any federal agency within the past three (3) years; does not have a proposed debarment pending; and has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past three (3) years. Any exceptions to this certification must be disclosed to COMMISSION. B. Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of recommendation for award, but will be considered in determining CONSULTANT responsibility. Disclosures must indicate to whom exceptions apply, initiating agency, and dates of action. C. Exceptions to the Federal Government Excluded Parties List System maintained by the General Services Administration are to be determined by the Federal highway Administration. 3. DISCRIMINATION The Commission shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract or in the implementation of the Caltrans DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Commission shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Consultant or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, of sex in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant or subcontractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 and the Caltrans DBE program in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts, as further set forth below. Failure by the Consultant or subcontractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this Agreement or such other remedy, as the Commission deems appropriate. 17336.03400\31233218.1 160 4. PROMPT PAYMENT Consultant agrees to pay each subcontractor under this prime contract for satisfactory performance of its contract no later than 10 days from the receipt of each payment the prime contractor receives from the Commission. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the Commission. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. 5. RELEASE OF RETAINAGE No retainage will be withheld by the Agency from progress payments due the prime consultant. Retainage by the prime consultant or subconsultants is prohibited, and no retainage will be held by the prime consultant from progress due subconsultants. Any violation of this provision shall subject the violating prime consultant or subconsultants to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the prime consultant or subconsultant in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the prime consultant or deficient subconsultant performance, or noncompliance by a subconsultant. This provision applies to both DBE and non -DBE prime consultants and subconsultants. 6. LEGAL REMEDIES In addition to those contract remedies set forth under relevant provisions of California law, either Party to this Agreement may, where applicable, seek legal redress for violations of this Agreement pursuant to the relevant provisions of 49 C.F.R. Parts 23 and 26, to the relevant federal or state statutory provisions governing civil rights violations, and to the relevant federal and state provisions governing false claims or "whistleblower" actions, as well as any and all other applicable federal and state provisions of law. The Consultant shall include a provision to this effect in each of its agreements with its subcontractors. 7. DBE PARTICIPATION Caltrans has developed a statewide DBE program pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 26. The requirements and procedures, as applicable, of the Caltrans DBE program are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Even if no DBE participation will be reported, Consultant shall complete Exhibits "E" of this Agreement in compliance with the Caltrans DBE program, and a final utilization report in the form provided by the Commission. 17336.03400\31233218.1 161 A. This Agreement is subject to Title 49, Part 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations entitled "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs." By obtaining DBE participation on this Agreement, Consultant will assist Caltrans in meeting its federally mandated statewide overall DBE goal. B. This Agreement has a DBE goal. The Consultant must meet the goal by committing DBE participation or document a good faith effort to meet the goal. If a DBE subconsultant is unable to perform, the Consultant must make a good faith effort to replace him/her with another DBE subconsultant, if the goal is not otherwise met. A DBE is a firm meeting the definition of a DBE as specified in 49 CFR. C. DBE and other small businesses (SB), as defined in Title 49 CFR, Part 26 are encouraged to participate in the performance of agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds. The Consultant, subrecipient or subconsultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26 in the award and administration of US DOT- assisted agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this Agreement or such other remedy as the Commission, Caltrans or the Department of Transportation deems appropriate. D. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all of the provisions of this section. E. A DBE may be terminated only with prior written approval from the Commission and only for the reasons specified in 49 CFR 26.53(f). Prior to requesting Commission consent for the termination, the prime consultant must meet the procedural requirements specified in 49 CFR 26.53(f). 8. DBE PARTICIPATION GENERAL INFORMATION It is Consultant's responsibility to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26, and the Caltrans DBE program. Particular attention is directed to the following: A. A DBE must be a small business firm defined pursuant to 13 CFR 121 and be certified through the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP). B. A certified DBE may participate as a prime contractor, subcontractor, joint venture partner, as a vendor of material or supplies, or as a trucking company. C. A DBE joint -venture partner must be responsible for specific contract items of work or clearly defined portions thereof. Responsibility means actually performing, managing and supervising the work with its own forces. The DBE joint venture partner 17336.03400\31233218.1 162 must share in the capital contribution, control, management, risks and profits of the joint -venture commensurate with its ownership interest. D. A DBE must perform a commercially useful function, pursuant to 49 CFR 26.55 that is, must be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work and must carry out its responsibility by actually performing, managing and supervising the work, as more fully described in section 8 below. E. The Consultant shall list only one subcontractor for each portion of work as defined in the Consultant's bid/proposal and all DBE subcontractors should be listed in the Consultant's bid/cost proposal list of subcontractors. F. A Consultant who is a certified DBE is eligible to claim all of the work in the Agreement toward the DBE participation except that portion of the work to be performed by non -DBE subcontractors. 9 . COMMERCIALLY USEFUL FUNCTION A. A DBE performs a commercially useful function when it is responsible for execution of the work of the Agreement and is carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. To perform a commercially useful function, the DBE must also be responsible with respect to materials and supplies used on the Agreement, for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering the material, and installing (where applicable) and paying for the material itself. To determine whether a DBE is performing a commercially useful function, evaluate the amount of work subcontracted, industry practices; whether the amount the firm is to be paid under the Agreement is commensurate with the work it is actually performing, and other relevant factors. B. A DBE does not perform a commercially useful function if its role is limited to that of an extra participant in a transaction, Agreement, or project through which funds are passed in order to obtain the appearance of DBE participation. In determining whether a DBE is such an extra participant, examine similar transactions, particularly those in which DBEs do not participate. C. If a DBE does not perform or exercise responsibility for at least thirty percent of the total cost of its Agreement with its own work force, or the DBE subcontracts a greater portion of the work of the Agreement than would be expected on the basis of normal industry practice for the type of work involved, it will be presumed that it is not performing a commercially useful function. 10. DBE CERTIFICATION AND DE -CERTIFICATION STATUS If a DBE subcontractor is decertified during the life of the Agreement, the decertified subcontractor shall notify the Contractor in writing with the date of de -certification. If a 17336.03400\31233218.1 163 subcontractor becomes a certified DBE during the life of the Agreement, the subcontractor shall notify the Contractor in writing with the date of certification. Any changes should be reported to the Commission's Contract Administrator within 30 days. 11. DBE RECORDS A. The Contractor shall maintain records of materials purchased and/or supplied from all subcontracts entered into with certified DBEs. The records shall show the name and business address of each DBE or vendor and the total dollar amount actually paid each DBE or vendor, regardless of tier. The records shall show the date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to all firms. DBE prime Contractors shall also show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work. In addition to all other requirements, Consultant shall complete and submit, on a monthly basis, the Monthly DBE Payment form (Caltrans Exhibit 9-F of Chapter 9 of the LAPM). B. Upon completion of the Agreement, a summary of these records shall be prepared and submitted on the most current version of the form entitled, "Final Report - Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)," CEM- 2402F (Exhibit 17-F in Chapter 17 of the LAPM), certified correct by the Contractor or the Contractor's authorized representative and shall be furnished to the Commission's Contract Administrator with the final invoice. Failure to provide the summary of DBE payments with the final invoice will result in twenty-five percent (25%) of the dollar value of the invoice being withheld from payment until the form is submitted. The amount will be returned to the Contractor when a satisfactory "Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)" is submitted to the Commission's Contract Administrator. a. Prior to the fifteenth of each month, the Contractor shall submit documentation to the Commission's Contract Administrator showing the amount paid to DBE trucking companies. The Contractor shall also obtain and submit documentation to the Commission's Contract Administrator showing the amount paid by DBE trucking companies to all firms, including owner -operators, for the leasing of trucks. If the DBE leases trucks from a non -DBE, the Contractor may count only the fee or commission the DBE receives as a result of the lease arrangement. b. The Contractor shall also submit to the Commission's Contract Administrator documentation showing the truck number, name of owner, California Highway Patrol CA number, and if applicable, the DBE certification number of the truck owner for all trucks used during that month. This documentation shall be submitted on the Caltrans "Monthly DBE Trucking Verification," CEM-2404(F) form provided to the Contractor by the Commission's Contract Administrator. 17336.03400\31233218.1 164 12. REPORTING MATERIAL OR SUPPLIES PURCHASED FROM DBEs When Reporting DBE Participation, Material or Supplies purchased from DBEs may count as follows: A. If the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer, 100 % of the cost of the materials or supplies will count toward the DBE participation. A DBE manufacturer is a firm that operates or maintains a factory or establishment that produces on the premises, the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment required under the Agreement and of the general character described by the specifications. B. If the materials or supplies purchased from a DBE regular dealer, count 60 % of the cost of the materials or supplies toward DBE goals. A DBE regular dealer is a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the materials, supplies, articles or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the Agreement, are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold or leased to the public in the usual course of business. To be a DBE regular dealer, the firm must be an established, regular business that engages, as its principal business and under its own name, in the purchase and sale or lease of the products in question. A person may be a DBE regular dealer in such bulk items as petroleum products, steel, cement, gravel, stone or asphalt without owning, operating or maintaining a place of business provided in this section. C. If the person both owns and operates distribution equipment for the products, any supplementing of regular dealers' own distribution equipment, shall be by a long-term lease agreement and not an ad hoc or Agreement -by -Agreement basis. Packagers, brokers, manufacturers' representatives, or other persons who arrange or expedite transactions are not DBE regular dealers within the meaning of this section. D. Materials or supplies purchased from a DBE, which is neither a manufacturer nor a regular dealer, will be limited to the entire amount of fees or commissions charged for assistance in the procurement of the materials and supplies, or fees or transportation charges for the delivery of materials or supplies required on the job site, provided the fees are reasonable and not excessive as compared with fees charged for similar services. 13. REPORTING PARTICIPATION OF DBE TRUCKING COMPANIES When Reporting DBE Participation, Participation of DBE trucking companies may count as follows: A. The DBE must be responsible for the management and supervision of the entire trucking operation for which it is responsible. 17336.03400\31233218.1 165 B. The DBE must itself own and operate at least one fully licensed, insure, and operational truck used on the Agreement. C. The DBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services it provides on the Agreement using trucks it owns, insures, and operates using drivers it employs. D. The DBE may lease trucks from another DBE firm including an owner -operator who is certified as a DBE. The DBE who leases trucks from another DBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services the lessee DBE provides on the Agreement. E. The DBE may also lease trucks from a non -DBE firm, including an owner - operator. The DBE who leases trucks from a non -DBE is entitled to credit only for the fee or commission it receives as a result of the lease arrangement. The DBE does not receive credit for the total value of the transportation services provided by the lessee, since these services are not provided by the DBE. F. For the purposes of this section, a lease must indicate that the DBE has exclusive use and control over the truck. This does not preclude the leased truck from working for others during the term of the lease with the consent of the DBE, as long as the lease gives the DBE absolute priority for use of the leased truck. Leased trucks must display the name and identification number of the DBE. 14. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION In accordance with 49 CFR Part 29, which by this reference is incorporated herein, Consultant's subconsultants completed and submitted the Certificate of subconsultant Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion as part of the Consultant's proposal. If it is later determined that Consultant's subconsultants knowingly rendered an erroneous Certificate, the Commission may, among other remedies, terminate this Agreement. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE A. Compliance with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)), section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15). (Contracts, subcontracts, and subgrants of amounts in excess of $100,000). B. Mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871). 17336.03400\31233218.1 166 16. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10296, and by signing this Agreement, Consultant certifies under penalty of perjury that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against Consultant within the immediately preceding two-year period, because of Consultant's failure to comply with an order of a federal court that orders Consultant to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board. 17336.03400\31233218.1 167 EXHIBIT "E" CONSULTANT DBE COMMITMENT [attached behind this page] 17336.03400\31233218.1 ATTACHMENT'C' EXHIBIT 10-01 CONSULTANT PROPOSAL DBE COMMITMENT 1. Local Agency_ Riverside County Transportation Commission 2_ Contract DBE Goal: 13% 3. Project Description: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project - Southern Extension 4. Project Location: Cajalco Road to SR-74 5. Consultant's Name: HDR Engineering, Inc. 6. Prime Certified DBE: O 7. Description of Work, Service, or Materials Supplied 8, DBE Certification Number 9. DBE Contact Information 10. DBE % Public Outreach and Public Information Services Technical Editing, Rights -of -entry letters CUCP #42549 CltyWorks 1214 Mohave Drive, Colton, CA 92324 Michele McKinney 951.897.0897 2 0'::. Advanced Planning Study, Wall Design, and Related Cost Estimates to Support PALED CUCP #27413 IDC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 300 S. Harbor Blvd, Suite 710, Anaheim, CA 92805 Wendy Li, PE 909.451.1338 1,5% Paleontological Resources CUCP #37411 Paleo Solutions 911 S. Pri se Ave, Unit N. Monrovia, CA91016 Gerald' ron, Principal 562 818.7713 0.1% Utility Identification Drainage Design and Related Cost estimating to Support Facility Design for PALED CUCP #41797 The Group Enterprise, Inc. 3 ilsh Ivd, Suite 1240, Los Angeles, CA 90 dy Duong, 23 609 6100 )10 B 0% Field Sampling, Traffic Control, Lab Testing, and HazMat Reports for Lead Based Paint 1 Asbestos Containing Material CUCP #41893 A-T Consultin 1 Katetla, Suite 112, Orange, CA 92867 adelte Guerrero 714.221 6378 1 5`:S 1?11111111111111P Local Agency to Complete thl tl 11. TOTAL CLAIMED OBE PARTICIPATION 13 1 °A 17. local Agency Contract Number. 18. Federal -Aid Project Number. 19. Proposed Contract Execution Date: Local Agency certifies that all DBE certifications are valid and information on this form is complete and accurate. IMPORTANT: Identify all DBE firms being claimed for credit, regardless of tier. Written confirmation of each listed DBE Is required. January 28, 2019 20. Local Agency Representative's Signature 21. Date 12. Preparers Signature 13. Date Mark Hager, PE 951.320.7300 22. Local Agency Representative's Name 23. Phone 14. Preparer's Name 15. Phone Project Manager 24. Local Agency Representative's Tltle 16. Preparer's Title DISTRIBUTION: Original — Included with consultant's proposal to local agency. AbA Notice: For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available In alternate formats. For Information call (916) 654.6410 or TDD (916) 654- 3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 96814. 169 EXHIBIT "F" DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES [attached behind this page] 17336.03400\31233218.1 ATTACHMENT 'D' Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHBIT 10-Q Disclosure of Lobbying Activities EXHIBIT 10-Q DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES COMPLETE TIIIS FORM TO DISCLOSE LOBBYING ACTIVITILS PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. 1352 1. Type of Federal Action: 2. Status of Federal Action: a. contract b. grant c. cooperative agreement d. loan e. loan guarantee f. loan insurance Eia. bid/offer/application b. initial award c_ post -award 4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity 3. Report Type: Ma. initial b, material change For Material Change Only: year _ quarter date of last report 5. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is Subaw•ardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime: ElPrime ElSubawnrdee MDR Engineering, Inc. Tier . if known 2280 Market St, Suite 100 Riverside, C 2501 Congressional District, if known Congression strict, if known 6. Federal Department/Agency: 7. Federal t Name/Description: S. Federal Action Number, ifknown; 10. Name and Address of Lobby Entity (If individual, last name. first name, MI) (attach Continua 12. Amount of Payment (check all that • • ) 5 0 ❑ actual CF► _umber, icable and Amount, if als Performing Services ing address if different from No. 10) (la e, first name, Ml) e of Payment (check all that apply) a. retainer b. one-time Ice 13. Form of Payment (check all app c. commission Ba. cash d_ contingent fee b. in -kind; sr a deferred f other. specify 15. Brief Descript officer(s), employ med or to be performed and Date(s) of Service, including s) contacted, for Payment Indicated in Item 12: (attach Continuation Sheet(s) if necessary) 16. Continuation Sheet(s) Mtn cd: 1'es No ❑ 17• Information requested through this form is authorized by Title 31 U S C Section 1352 This disclosure of lobbying reliance was placed b) the tier above when his transaction ►vas made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 t; S C 1352 This mfonnation will be reported to Congress semiannually and wilt be available for public irtpectton Anw person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than SIfl,000 and not more than S100,000 for each such failure Federal Use Only: Signature; Print Name: Kip D, Field, PE Title; Vice President Telephone No.: 951.320.7300 Date:01/28/2019 Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form - LLL Standard Farm LLL Rev 04•28-06 Distribution: Ong- Local Agency Project Files LPP 13-01 Page 1 May S, 2013 171 AGENDA ITEM 9E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority for the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project Design -Build Phase WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-067-00 with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for reimbursement for closure of the OCTA 91 Express Lanes in support of the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector Project (15/91 ELC) in the amount of $398,000, plus a contingency amount of $39,000, for a total amount not to exceed $437,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the project; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve future non -funding amendments to this agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2017 Governor Brown signed SB 132, which appropriated $427 million to the Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridor for five projects. SB 132 allocated $180 million to the 15/91 ELC project. The 15/91 ELC will provide a tolled express lanes connector between the existing RCTC 91 Express Lanes and the future 1-15 Express Lanes to the north of SR-91 (Figure 1 Vicinity Map). Agenda Item 9E 172 -15/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector w Norco Hid4en Valley Ploy a Corona G O� F 1) 92Q ,0 00 0 0 Project Limits OIL Lake Matthews Figure 1: 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project Vicinity Map Since November 2018, staff has been working closely with OCTA to develop a reimbursement agreement for closure of the OCTA 91 Express Lanes. This agreement allows the Commission to make improvements to 1-15 and SR-91 and assigns responsibilities between OCTA and the Commission during the design and construction of the project. The reimbursement for closure of the OCTA 91 Express Lanes will be paid with project funds provided from SB 132 funds and/or RCTC 91 Express Lanes toll revenue. DISCUSSION: The closure of the OCTA 91 Express Lanes will allow the expedited and cost-efficient construction of SR-91 improvements related to the 15/91 ELC project. These closures will result in loss of toll revenue for OCTA that will be compensated by the Commission as described in the attached draft agreement. The costs associated with this agreement cover the cost of weekday and/or weekend closures of the OCTA 91 Express Lanes in the westbound and eastbound directions. The closure of the OCTA 91 Express Lanes will be permitted during nighttime only when the potential toll revenue on the OCTA 91 Express Lanes is the lowest, thus minimizing the costs to the 15/91 ELC project. The Commission -authorized contingency will cover any additional unanticipated permitted nightly closures required for the project. The design -build contract approach currently under development anticipates reimbursement of these costs paid to OCTA by the design -build contractor. Although this does not change the fact that these costs will ultimately be paid for by Agenda Item 9E 173 the 15/91 ELC project, it does help to minimize the number of closures and costs since this will be part of a competitive procurement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the agreement between the Commission and OCTA in the amount of $398,000, plus a contingency amount of $39,000, for a total amount not to exceed $437,000. Further, authorization is requested for the Chair or Executive Director to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, for the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the project, authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve future non -funding amendments to this agreement, and forward the agreement to Commission for final action. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2019/2020 FY 2020/2021+ Amount: $200,000 $237,000 SB 132 Funds and 91 Express Lanes Toll No Source of Funds: Budget Adjustment: Revenue N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003039 81602 00000 0000 605 3181601 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Iltzza.1Ai nv� Date: 04/12/2019 Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 19-31-067-00 with OCTA Agenda Item 9E 174 Agreement No. 19-31-067-00 AGREEMENT BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLOSURE OF 91 EXPRESS LANES This Agreement ("Agreement") is dated , 2019 and is by and between the Orange County Transportation Authority ("OCTA") and the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"). OCTA and RCTC are individually referred to as a "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties." Recitals 1. WHEREAS, OCTA is the owner and operator of the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County "Toll Facility"; and 2. WHEREAS, RCTC is the owner and operator of the 91 Express Lanes in Riverside County and as part of the design -build delivery of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (ELP) and Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector Project (ELC) has requested the closure of the OCTA Toll Facility for approximately sixty (60) nights in the Eastbound direction and approximately sixteen (16) nights in the Westbound direction for the purpose of installing and testing a new Variable Tolling Message Sign (VTMS) along Eastbound State Route 91 (SR 91), construction of the ELC Project, and other associated work ("Work") in Orange County; and 3. WHEREAS, forty (40) of the Toll Facility closures in the Eastbound direction are planned to occur in the first and second quarters of 2020 and twenty (20) of the Toll Facility closures in the Eastbound direction are planned to occur in 2021/2022 from the hours of 9:00 p.m. through 5:00 a.m.; and 4. WHEREAS, ten (10) of the Toll Facility closures in the Westbound direction are planned to occur in the first quarter of 2020 and six (6) of the Toll Facility closures in the Westbound direction are planned to occur in 2021/2022 from the hours of 8:00 p.m. through 4:00 a.m. on weekday nights (Sunday from 8:00 p.m. through Friday at 4:00 a.m.) and from the hours of 9:00 p.m. through 5:00 a.m. on the weekend nights (Friday at 9:00 p.m. through Sunday at 5:00 a.m.); and 5. WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that the closure of the Toll Facility will have a financial impact on OCTA through lost toll revenues; and 6. WHEREAS, RCTC has agreed to reimburse OCTA for the lost toll revenues associated with the requested closure pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Terms and Conditions NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1 1233807.1 17336.02100\31669716.6 175 1. Grant of Closures — OCTA hereby agrees to allow closure of the Eastbound lanes of the Toll Facility for approximately forty (40) nights from 9:00 p.m. through 5:00 a.m. in the first and second quarter of 2020 and closure of the Westbound lanes of the Toll Facility for approximately ten (10) nights from 8:00 p.m. through 4:00 a.m. on weekday nights and from 9:00 p.m. through 5:00 a.m. on weekend nights in the first quarter of 2020 in order for RCTC and/or its contractors to install and test a new VTMS along Eastbound SR 91 in Orange County. OCTA hereby agrees to allow closure of the Eastbound lanes of the Toll Facility for approximately twenty (20) nights from 9:00 p.m. through 5:00 a.m. in 2021/2022 and closure of the Westbound lanes of the Toll Facility for approximately six (6) nights from 8:00 p.m. through 4:00 a.m. on weekday nights and from 9:00 p.m. through 5:00 a.m. on weekend nights in 2021/2022 in order for RCTC and/or its contractors to construct the ELC Project. RCTC and/or its contractors may access the Toll Facility during the above referenced hours, herein referenced as "Permitted Closures", to perform the required Work. 2. Payment (a) In consideration for the closures of the Toll Facility, RCTC agrees to pay OCTA pursuant to the following schedule: Eastbound Direction For the Eastbound Direction, the "Weekday" is Sunday from 9:00 pm through Friday at 5:00 am. The "Weekend" is Friday from 9:00pm to Sunday at 5:00 am. (Q1/Q2 2020) Permitted Weekday Closure 9:00 pm to 5:00 am Permitted Weekend Closure 9:00 pm to 5:00 am Unpermitted Closure (Weekday or Weekend) (2021/2022) Permitted Weekday Closure Permitted Weekend Closure Unpermitted Closure (Weekday or Weekend) 5:01 am to 8:59 pm 9:00 pm to 5:00 am 9:00 pm to 5:00 am 5:01 am to 8:59 pm $3,000.00/night $5,200.00/night $22,600/for every partial or full 10 minute increment) $3,900.00/night $6,800.00/night $22,600/for every partial or full 10 minute increment) Westbound Direction For the Westbound Direction, the "Weekday" is Sunday from 8:00 pm through Friday at 4:00 am. The "Weekend" is Friday from 9:00 pm to Sunday at 5:00 am. ' Closures during this period are not permitted, unless otherwise approved in writing by OCTA. Unpermitted Closure amounts shown are for each 10 minute period (or portion thereof) the closure continues beyond the Permitted Closure period. 2 1233807.1 17336.02100\31669716.6 176 (Q 1 2020) Permitted Weekday Closure Permitted Weekend Closure Unpermitted Weekday Closure: 8:00 pm to 4:00 am 9:00 pm to 5:00 am Monday 4:01 am to 7:59 pm Tuesday 4:01 am to 7:59 pm Wednesday 4:01 am to 7:59 pm Thursday 4:01 am to 7:59 pm Friday 4:01 am to 8:59 pm Unpermitted Weekend Closure : (2021/2022) Permitted Weekday Closure Permitted Weekend Closure Unpermitted Weekday Closure $3,000.00/night $1,400.00/night $22,600/for every partial or full 10 minute increment' Saturday 5:01 am to 8:59 pm $22,600/for every partial or full Sunday 5:01 am to 7:59 pm 10 minute increment' 8:00 pm to 4:00 am 9:00 pm to 5:00 am Monday 4:01 am to 7:59 pm Tuesday 4:01 am to 7:59 pm Wednesday 4:01 am to 7:59 pm Thursday 4:01 am to 7:59 pm Friday 4:01 am to 8:59 pm $3,900.00/night $1,800.00/night $22,600/for every partial or full 10 minute increment' Unpermitted Weekend Closure : Saturday 5:01 am to 8:59 pm $22,600/for every partial or full Sunday 5:01 am to 7:59 pm 10 minute increment' RCTC agrees to pay OCTA all amounts due and owing within thirty (30) days of the receipt of a written request for payment from OCTA. (b) RCTC has allocated the not to exceed sum of $398,000 for Permitted Closures under this Agreement. Permitted Closures shall not exceed the foregoing sum without written approval of RCTC's Executive Director. 3. Performance of Work — RCTC shall perform all Work, and shall ensure its contractors perform all Work, in accordance with the following: (a) All Work shall be at the sole cost and expense of RCTC and/or its contractors. (b) RCTC and its contractors shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any impacts to OCTA's operations, including, without limitation, conducting all Work on the Toll Facility only between the Permitted Closure hours during the timeframes identified in Section 1 above. 3 1233807.1 17336.02100\31669716.6 177 (c) RCTC or its contractors shall acquire all applicable governmental permits, approvals and other authorizations required under all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, orders and ordinances prior to conducting the Work. All Work shall be conducted in accordance with all (i) applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, rules, orders and ordinances, (ii) all industry standards, and (iii) all additional standards as reasonably required by OCTA. (d) RCTC and/or its contractors, at their sole cost and expense, shall before the end of any closure promptly remove from the Toll Facility all equipment and any soil, material and waste generated during the Work. OCTA shall not be identified as the generator of any such soil, material or waste on any manifests or similar documents generated in connection with the Work; provided, however, that this provision shall not be construed as preventing the identification of the property if required on such manifests or similar documents. (e) RCTC and/or its contractors shall deliver to OCTA notice of any Permitted Closures of the Toll Facility, not less than seven days prior to the proposed commencement date of the Permitted Closure. Any such closure shall be subject to the approval of OCTA. If RCTC's contractor wishes to withdraw or amend a previously submitted notice of Permitted Closure(s), the contractor shall provide further notice (in the same manner as the original notice) of such withdrawal or amendment not less than five days prior to the proposed commencement date of the Permitted Closure. If RCTC and/or its contractors fail to deliver such withdrawal or amendment not less than seventy- two (72) hours prior to the proposed commencement date of the Permitted Closure, RCTC shall still be responsible for payment of the Permitted Closure even though said Permitted Closure was not utilized by RCTC and/or its contractors. (0 RCTC and/or its contractor shall provide further notice as soon as they have knowledge that a Permitted Closure will be late in reopening. In the event that a Permitted Closure does not reopen on time, OCTA will not authorize any further lane closures until RCTC's contractor submits to OCTA a corrective action plan to avoid recurrences and OCTA approves, in writing, said corrective action plan. (0 Closures of the Toll Facility shall not be allowed during the following weekends: (i) New Year's weekend; (ii) on Martin Luther King weekend; (iii) on Presidents Day weekend; (iv) on Easter weekend; (v) on Mother's Day weekend; (vi) on Memorial Day weekend; (vii) 4th of July weekend; (viii) Labor Day weekend; (ix) Veterans Day weekend; (x) Weekend before and weekend after Thanksgiving; and (xi) weekend before and weekend after Christmas Day. (h) The Work shall be conducted only under the supervision of person and entities licensed and certified to perform the Work. Furthermore, an authorized representative of RCTC or Cofiroute shall be present at all times during the Work. (i) RCTC represents and warrants to OCTA that RCTC is legally insured for property damage and personal injury, in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate with additional limits of $25,000,000 per occurrence in Excess Liability. In addition, RCTC shall cause all of its contractors performing the Work who enter upon the Toll Facility to maintain, at least $5,000,000 per occurrence in insurance coverage under all of the following types of policies: automobile liability 4 1233807.1 17336.02100\31669716.6 178 insurance, commercial general liability insurance (which shall include coverage for both bodily injury and abroad form property damage), and Professional Liability insurance, Pollution Liability insurance, as well as all worker's compensation insurance required by law including a waiver of subrogation in favor of OCTA, its officers, directors, employees or agents. The foregoing coverage limits may be met through a combination of the contractor's underlying policies and umbrella or excess liability insurance. OCTA shall be named as an additional insured on all such policies maintained by RCTC's contractor except for the worker's compensation and professional liability policies. In no event shall the amount of such insurance coverage serve as a limitation on RCTC's or its contractors' liability. (j) RCTC and its contractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, repair all damage to the Toll Facility caused by the Work, it being the intent of this Agreement that upon completion of the Work, business activities on the Toll Facility may promptly resume without hindrance, obstruction or delay, and the Toll Facility shall be in the same condition as existing prior to the Work. (k) OCTA shall have absolutely no obligation for advising or informing RCTC or its contractors as to the location(s) of any underground utilities, structures, equipment at or beneath the Toll Facility. The responsibility for determining and confirming the location(s) of any underground utilities, structures and equipment shall be solely of RCTC and its contractors. In the event any underground utilities, structures or equipment are damaged by the Work, it shall be RCTC's and its contractors' responsibility to promptly repair, at their sole cost and expense, the same, regardless of the reason(s) why such utilities, structures or equipment were damaged, it being the intent of the Parties hereto that the risk of the same shall be borne solely by RCTC. (1) RCTC shall be responsible for providing all safety measures during the Work. (m) If the performance of the Work causes damage to the Toll Facility or any adjacent structures, facilities, underground utilities or equipment that results in the Toll Facility not being fully available for use during the repair, RCTC shall reimburse OCTA at the Permitted and Unpermitted Closure rates listed in Section 2 above for the entirety of time it takes to effectuate the repair 4. Indemnity - In further consideration of OCTA entering into this Agreement, RCTC agrees to protect, hold harmless, indemnify and defend OCTA and its directors, officers, employees, contractors, representatives, successors and assigns (collectively, "Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all suits, claims, causes of actions, assessments, taxes, demands, damages, liens, losses, injuries, liabilities, orders, directives, fines, penalties, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, expert witness fees and bond costs) related to, arising from or based upon: (i) any bodily injury (including death) and/or property damage arising from, caused by or resulting from the Work, (ii) any negligent act(s) or omission(s) at or regarding the Toll Facility by RCTC or its contractors arising from, caused by or resulting from the Work, and/or (iii) any breach of this Agreement by RCTC. The foregoing shall not apply to the extent of OCTA's sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct. 5. Notice — Except as may otherwise be expressly provided for in this Agreement, any notices or the like required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered, provided or received, as required by applicable provision, (i) when delivered if personally delivered, (ii) when emailed to the addresses listed below with return receipt, (iii) upon written fax confirmation if sent via 5 1233807.1 17336.02100\31669716.6 179 fax, (iv) the next business day if sent via overnight carrier for guaranteed delivery the next business day with delivery confirmation, or (v) three (3) business days after being sent by United States first class certified mail — return receipt requested, postage prepaid, if mailed. Any notices or the like required hereunder shall be sent as follows: If to OCTA: Orange County Transportation Authority Kirk Avila, General Manager 550 South Main St. Orange, CA 92688 714-560-5674 kavila@octa.net If to RCTC: Riverside County Transportation Commission Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502 951-787-7141 mblomquist@rctc.org The foregoing addresses may be changed from time to time in a manner in compliance with this Section. If any notice sent via personal delivery of fax is received by the recipient on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday or after 5:00 pm Pacific Standard Time on a business day, it shall be deemed delivered, provided and received on the next business day. 6. Governing Law — This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 7. Assignment - This Agreement may not be assigned by RCTC. This Agreement may be assigned by OCTA in its sole discretion. 8. Counterparts — This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which counterparts shall constitute a single, integrated agreement. 9. Modification; Waiver — This Agreement cannot be modified, amended or altered, or any of the terms hereof waived, except by a writing referring specifically to this Agreement and its intent to modify, amend, alter or waive the same, signed by the Parties. No such waiver shall be deemed to be a subsequent waiver of such provisions or a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision hereof. 10. Entire Agreement — This Agreement contains all agreements and understandings between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof. There are no oral or written representations, stipulations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the same which are not fully set forth herein. 11. Headings — The paragraph headings in this Agreement are intended solely for the convenience of reference and shall not in any manner amplify, limit, modify or otherwise affect the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, and the masculine, feminine or gender neutral, as well 6 1233807.1 17336.02100\31669716.6 180 as the singular and plural, shall be deemed to include the other gender and numbers whenever the context so indicates or requires. 12. No Joint Venture — The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement shall not be construed to create a partnership, joint venture, employment or agency relationship between the Parties. 13. Additional Representations and Warranties — Each Party to this Agreement represents and warrants: (i) it has made such investigation of the facts and matters pertaining to this Agreement that it deemed necessary, (ii) it had an opportunity to consult with an attorney regarding this Agreement, and (iii) it has read this Agreement and understands its contents. 14. Authority to Execute — Each of the persons signing this Agreement hereby represents and warrants that he/she is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom he/she is signing 15. Time is of the Essence — Time is of the essence with respect to each and every provision hereof. 16. Breach by Contractors — Any breach of any duty, covenant or obligations of RCTC's contractors hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement by RCTC. [Signatures on following page] 7 1233807.1 17336.02100\31669716.6 181 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLOSURE OF 91 EXPRESS LANES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly entered into this Agreement. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Darrell Johnson, CEO Date: Approved as to Form James M. Donich General Counsel RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORATION COMMISSION Anne E. Mayer, Executive Director Approved as to Form Steven C. DeBaun General Counsel 8 1233807.1 17336.02100\31669716.6 182 AGENDA ITEM 9F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 19-007 for Fiscal Year 2018/19 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Funds for Expanded Perris Valley Line Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 19-007, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Authorization for the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program for the Expanded Perris Valley Line Fiscal Year 2018/19 Funds Project in the Amount of $1,496,728." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission's Commuter Rail Program applies for various federal and state funds that are necessary to fund rail projects within Riverside County. There is also the need for grants to meet the Commission's annual funding responsibility related to rail operations and capital passenger projects to support the county's share of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) service. The Commuter Rail Program is currently seeking approval to obtain grant funding through the California Department of Transportation Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP). LCTOP is one of several programs that are part of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established under SB 862. SB 862 established LCTOP as a noncompetitive, formulaic program, with 5 percent of annual auction proceeds from cap -and -trade dollars being continually appropriated beginning 2015. LCTOP funds are distributed based on prior use of State Transit Assistance funds where 50 percent of the funds are designated to regional entities such as the Commission and the other 50 percent directly to transit operators. Projects eligible for this funding need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support transit agencies in their effort to increase mode share. The Rail Program is seeking operation funding in the amount of $1,496,728 for the new Perris Valley Line (PVL) Commuter Rail service, including additional weekday and weekend service that is proposed to be implemented in FY 2019/20. Agenda Item 9F 183 As required by the LCTOP grant guidelines, a resolution is needed to authorize use of the funds for PVL operations and authorize the Executive Director to execute the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent forms. The resolution is required to submit and file the grant; therefore, staff recommends approval of the resolution related to the FY 2018/19 LCTOP grant. There is no financial impact to the current fiscal year budget for this item. Funding received from this grant will be included in the final FY 2019/20 budget to be presented at the June meeting and will be reflected in the Commission's Commuter Rail FY 2019/20 Short Range Transit Plan. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2019/20 Amount: $1,496,728 Source of Funds: LCTOP Budget Adjustment: Yes (final budget) GL/Project Accounting No.: 034198 415 41511 0000 103 25 41501 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14144,/44� Date: 04/24/2019 Attachment: Resolution No. 19-007 Agenda Item 9F 184 RESOLUTION No. 19-007 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES AND AUTHORIZED AGENT FORMS FOR THE LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP) FOR THE EXPANDED PERRIS VALLEY LINE OPERATION FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 FUNDS PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,496,728 WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is an eligible project sponsor and may receive state funding from the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) for transit projects; and WHEREAS, the statutes related to state -funded transit projects require a local or regional implementing agency to abide by various regulations; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 862 (2014) named the Department of Transportation (Department) as the administrative agency for the LCTOP; and WHEREAS, the Department has developed guidelines for the purpose of administering and distributing LCTOP funds to eligible project sponsors (local agencies); and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission wishes to delegate authorization to execute these documents and any amendments thereto to Anne Mayer, Executive Director; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission wishes to implement the following LCTOP project listed above, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission that the fund recipient agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in the Certification and Assurances and the Authorized Agent documents and applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines for all LCTOP funded transit projects. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Anne Mayer, Executive Director be authorized to execute all required documents of the LCTOP program and any Amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission that it hereby authorizes the submittal of the following project nomination and allocation request to the Department in 185 FY 2018-19 LCTOP funds: List project(s), including the following information: Project Name: Expanded Perris Valley Line Operation FY18/19 Funds Amount of LCTOP funds requested: $1,496,728 Short description of project: Funding will be used for operating costs associated to expand the commuter rail Perris Valley Line. Contributing Sponsor: Not applicable APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8TH day of May 2019. Chuck Washington, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 186 AGENDA ITEM 9G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Michelle McCamish, Management Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Funding Agreement with the California Highway Patrol for Freeway Service Patrol Supervision WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 19-45-063-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County for a three-year term in an amount not to exceed $3,002,629; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FSP program is operated as a joint venture between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CHP, and the Commission in its capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). The Riverside County SAFE is responsible for administering the program, and the CHP provides daily field supervision to ensure service performance. The CHP has supplemental agreements with various SAFES statewide for overtime and/or additional personnel. Since 2001, the Commission has executed agreements with CHP due to the limited personnel and nature of the FSP program. In addition to field supervision during FSP operating hours (5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. [12:30 p.m. on Fridays] to 6:30 p.m.), there are services performed between operating hours that support the program, therefore requiring CHP officers to work overtime. Below is a sample of the services performed by FSP CHP officers: In -field Supervisory Services Provided During FSP Operating Hours (not exhaustive): • Provide in -field, on scene, program supervision; • Provide on -the -spot decisions regarding incidents occurring in the field; • Enforce program rules and guidelines through in -field supervision; Agenda Item 9G 187 " C o n d u c t a l l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o e q u i p m e n t , p e r s o n n e l , d a m a g e , a n d c o m p l a i n t s ; " I n s p e c t t o w t r u c k s f o r r e g u l a t o r y c o m p l i a n c e ; " S e r v e a s a F S P l i a i s o n b e t w e e n a g e n c i e s , s u c h a s w i t h o t h e r C H P p e r s o n n e l , C a l t r a n s , c i t i e s , c o u n t i e s , e t c . ; a n d " B e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c f o r F S P c o n c e r n s , q u e s t i o n s , c o m m e n t s , c o m p l a i n t s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S u p e r v i s o r y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d D u r i n g N o n - F S P H o u r s ( n o t e x h a u s t i v e ) : " I n i t i a t e b a c k g r o u n d c h e c k s a n d c o n d u c t t e s t i n g , f i n g e r p r i n t i n g , a n d c e r t i f i c a t i o n s f o r n e w F S P d r i v e r s ; " P r e p a r e t r a i n i n g c l a s s m a t e r i a l s ( b i n d e r s a n d m a p s ) ; " C o n d u c t t r a i n i n g c l a s s e s ; " T r a c k e x t r a t r u c k t i m e , f i n e s , p e n a l t i e s , a n d c e r t i f i c a t e s ( d r i v e r l i c e n s e , D L 6 4 , m e d i c a l c a r d s , a n d m o t o r c a r r i e r p e r m i t s ) ; " P r e p a r e m o n t h l y b i l l i n g ; " M a i n t a i n t h e s t a n d a r d o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s m a n u a l ; " M a i n t a i n d r o p p o i n t m a p s t o i n c l u d e c h a n g i n g l o c a l r e g u l a t i o n s ; " M o n i t o r t h e a u t o m a t i c v e h i c l e l o c a t o r s y s t e m , t a b l e t s , r a d i o s , a n d e q u i p m e n t ; " M a i n t a i n r e q u i r e d f i e l d - r e a d y e q u i p m e n t s u c h a s b a c k u p t a b l e t s , a n d m a g n e t i c s i g n s ; " P a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e r e q u e s t f o r p r o p o s a l p r o c e s s f o r n e w c o n t r a c t o r s ; " M a i n t a i n d r i v e r f i l e s a n d r e c o r d s f o r a l l F S P d r i v e r s ; " T r a c k F S P d r i v e r s ' t e n u r e a n d p e r f o r m a n c e w i t h r e g a r d t o d r i v e r r e c o g n i t i o n a n d a w a r d s ; a n d " A t t e n d a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y h o s t v a r i o u s F S P - r e l a t e d r e q u i r e d m e e t i n g s a n d t r a i n i n g s ( T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e a n d q u a r t e r l y d r i v e r s ' m e e t i n g s ) . o t h e r e l e c t r o n i c F S P r a d i o s , s a f e t y v e s t s , A t i t s J u n e 2 0 1 6 m e e t i n g , t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e d a n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e C H P f o r o v e r t i m e s u p e r v i s i o n a n d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e F S P p r o g r a m , i n c l u d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n F S P s u p p o r t f o r t h e S t a t e R o u t e 9 1 C o r r i d o r I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t ( 9 1 P r o j e c t ) , i n a n a m o u n t n o t t o e x c e e d $ 7 9 3 , 1 8 1 o v e r a t h r e e - y e a r t e r m . A t i t s M a r c h 2 0 1 7 m e e t i n g , t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e d a n a m e n d m e n t t o t h e a g r e e m e n t f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l a m o u n t o f $ 7 3 1 , 0 1 1 , t o s u p p o r t c o n s t r u c t i o n F S P f o r t h e 9 1 P r o j e c t a n d 9 1 E x p r e s s L a n e s F S P s e r v i c e . A t i t s M a r c h 2 0 1 8 m e e t i n g , t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e d a s e c o n d a m e n d m e n t i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 5 2 2 , 8 9 1 t o p r o v i d e i n c r e m e n t a l w e e k e n d s e r v i c e ( g r a n t f u n d e d ) o n s e l e c t b e a t s a n d f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n F S P s u p p o r t f o r t h e 1 - 1 5 E x p r e s s L a n e s P r o j e c t . A t i t s J u l y 2 0 1 8 m e e t i n g , t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e d a t h i r d a m e n d m e n t i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 4 4 0 , 0 0 0 , i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e S B 1 c o v e r a g e e x p a n s i o n t o s o u t h R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y ( S o u t h C o u n t y ) , f o r a t o t a l c o n t r a c t n o t t o e x c e e d $ 2 , 4 8 7 , 0 8 3 . C H P j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b o u n d a r i e s g o v e r n o v e r s i g h t a u t h o r i t y , a n d , i n t o t a l , t h e r e a r e s i x d e d i c a t e d F S P o f f i c e r s , a c r o s s t w o C H P d i v i s i o n s s u p p o r t i n g R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y F S P o p e r a t i o n s . F o u r F S P o f f i c e r s , b a s e d o u t o f I n l a n d C H P D i v i s i o n ( I n l a n d ) , s u p p o r t b o t h R i v e r s i d e a n d S a n B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y F S P o p e r a t i o n s , a n d t w o o f f i c e r s , b a s e d o u t o f B o r d e r C H P D i v i s i o n ( B o r d e r ) , o v e r s e e t h e n e w S o u t h C o u n t y e x p a n s i o n s e r v i c e a r e a s . C H P i s p r o v i d e d a n a l l o c a t i o n b y t h e s t a t e a n d A g e n d a I t e m 9 G 1 8 8 does absorb some of the baseline personnel costs with that allocation; however, supplemental agreements are needed to cover overtime, dispatch, and/or additional personnel. DISCUSSION: The current agreement expires on June 30, 2019, and staff seeks approval for a new agreement with CHP for another three-year term. This new agreement will support the following elements with overtime, dispatch, and additional personnel, as needed: Baseline FSP, 91 (and future 15) Express Lanes FSP, and construction (multiple projects) and incremental FSP (temporary or grant funded service). Staff coordinated with the local CHP division units (Border and Inland) to develop an estimate for the incremental CHP time and corresponding costs needed to support the aforementioned elements. In addition to the baseline personnel, the draft agreement provides for a maximum amount of overtime hours for officers and dispatchers (as shown below) for each fiscal year at a statewide rate determined each fiscal year by CHP headquarters. The current rates are $90.45 per hour for officers and $46.26 per hour for dispatchers. CHP advised that the Fiscal Year 2019/20 hourly rates will increase to $97.43 per hour for officers and $47.88 per hour for dispatchers. The total amount of the three-year agreement shall not exceed $3,002,629, including a 5 percent contingency. In the event CHP headquarters grants a rate increase, the Commission is required to reimburse the CHP at the new hourly rate, but in no event shall the total amount exceed the maximum contract amount. Below is a breakdown of the preliminary cost estimates and hours by fiscal year: FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Regular FSP $367,145 $383,473 $400,726 Express Lanes FSP 261,558 288,357 318,017 Incremental FSP 116,248 128,159 141,305 Construction FSP 308,929 137,313 151,399 $1,053,880 $937,302 $1,011,447 $3,002,629 Total CHP Contract Officer Hours Dispatch Hours 6,226 4,726 5,175 5,402 3,630 3,812 Construction FSP costs and hours are lower in FY 2021 and 2022, as no construction projects for the Border Division are currently anticipated in those fiscal years. Should any construction projects be identified at a later date, staff will return to the Commission to seek an amendment to this agreement. The funding agreement provides for the reimbursement from the Commission to the CHP of those reasonable overtime expenses necessary to support the FSP program, FSP service supporting the express lanes projects, and the SB 1 South County FSP program. The Commission only pays for actual supervision and dispatch time incurred, while the contract provides for both known and unforeseen FSP needs throughout the county. Both an Inland and Agenda Item 9G 189 Border CHP Lieutenant Commander provides direct supervision of the dedicated FSP officers and reviews and approves their reimbursed overtime expenses. Auditing of these reimbursable expenses is performed both at the local CHP division level and at the state level by the FSP liaison contracts unit. Additionally, Commission staff compares invoices to historical and internal data. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21+ Amount: $1,053 880 $1,948,749 Source of Funds: State allocations including SB1, SAFE, and toll revenues Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 002173 81016 00000 OXXX 20145 81002 009199 81016 00000 0000 591 3181002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14/444eativir Date: 04/23/2019 Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 19-45-063-00 Agenda Item 9G 190 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD AGREEMENT STD 213 (Rev 06/03) AGREEMENT NUMBER CHP# xxxxxxxxx RCTC #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 REGISTRATION NUMBER 1. This Agreement is entered into between the State Agency and the Contractor named below: Department of California Highway Patrol Riverside County Transportation Commission 2. The term of this Agreement is: 07/01/2019 through 06/30/2022 3. The maximum amount of this Agreement is: $3,002,628.98 (Three Million Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty -Eight Dollars and Ninety -Eight Cents) 4. The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement. Exhibit A — Agreement Between State of California and Riverside County Transportation Exhibit C* — General Terms and Conditions (with exclusion of item #4 "Audit", #5, "Indemnification", #6 "Disputes", #7 "Termination for Cause", #9 "Recycling", #11 "Certification clauses", #13 "Compensation", #15 "Antitrust Claims", #16 "Child Support Compliance", #18 "Priority Hiring Considerations", and #19 "Small Business Participation and DVBE Participation Reporting Requirements.") Signatures appear on page 9 of Exhibit A. 12 pages GTC 610 6/9/10 Items shown with an Asterisk ('), are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this agreement as if attached hereto. These documents can be viewed at www.dgs.ca.gov/ols/Resources/StandardContractLanguage.aspx IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR'S NAME (if other than an individual, state whether a corporation, partnership, etc.) Riverside County Transportation Commission BY (Authorized Signature) See page 12 for signatures DATE SIGNED(Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING See page 12 ADDRESS P.O. Box 1208, Riverside, CA 92502-2208 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY NAME Department of California Highway Patrol BY (Authorized Signature) See page 12 for signatures DATE SIGNED(Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING P. SLINEY, Assistant Chief, Administrative Services Division ADDRESS California Department of General Services Use Only P.O. Box 942898, Sacramento, CA 94298-0001 191 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 CHP#xxxxxxxxx Exhibit A, Page 1 of 11 AGREEMENT BETWEEN STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL THIS AGREEMENT is between the State of California acting by and through Department of California Highway Patrol (hereinafter referred to as CHP) P.O. Box 942898, Sacramento, California 94298-001 and Riverside County Transportation Commission, acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (hereinafter referred to as RCTC) P.O. Box 12008, Riverside, CA 92502-2208. Collectively, CHP and RCTC may be referred to as the "Parties." ARTICLE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION A. This Agreement provides for CHP dispatch services and overtime oversight assistance in connection with the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County. Streets and Highways Code Section 2561, subdivision (c) defines "freeway service patrol" as a "program managed by the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the [California Department of Transportation] and a regional or local entity which provides emergency roadside assistance on a freeway in an urban area." B. Section 2401 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) states that the Commissioner of CHP shall make adequate provisions for patrol of the highways at all times of the day and night. C. RCTC has the ability to provide local matching funds as required by the State Budget Change Proposal (BCP) for FSPs on freeways within Riverside County, which has qualified the county to participate in the State FSP program. Riverside County FSP 192 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 CH P#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 2 of 11 will assist in transportation system management efforts, provide traffic congestions relief, and expedite the removal of freeway impediments, all of which will have the added benefit of improving air quality. ARTICLE 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Riverside County's FSP program is intended to be funded with revenues derived from Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), State Budget Change Proposal funds, known as BCP, and Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) funds for the day-to-day contractor operation. RCTC is currently only provided 3 officers (two Inland Division officers and one Border Division officer) to provide oversight for the program within their jurisdiction in accordance with funding available for the statewide FSP program. With ongoing additions and turnover of FSP program drivers, the provision of additional driver training and required certification classes by CHP are a necessity in order for RCTC's tow contractors to maintain their contractual obligation of having only certified FSP drivers perform FSP services. With only 3 officers, it is difficult to provide classes as well as all other duties the officers are responsible for within regular duty hours. Therefore, it is necessary to fund an additional officer position for the Border Division and CHP overtime across both Border and Inland CHP Divisions for FSP program oversight assistance, incident investigations, administrative duties, and other field duties as required to maintain operational safety and code compliance. B. Should this Agreement be terminated under paragraph D, RCTC agrees to provide funding to reimburse CHP for those reasonable and allowable costs incurred and associated with the program overtime and administrative duties as defined in this Agreement up to the point of termination. C. The term of this Agreement shall be effective July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022. D. The CHP and RCTC mutually agree that either party may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other party. E. The CHP and RCTC agree that this Agreement may be amended by mutual written consent of both parties hereto. 193 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 CHP#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 3 of 11 F. RCTC agrees to reimburse CHP for actual costs incurred for FSP related duties performed by CHP officers ("Officers"), in accordance with the following schedule: i. For Regular FSP Program (Inland Division): 1) Approximately 1,000 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $97.43 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $97,430.00. 2) Approximately 1,020 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2020/2021, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $102.30 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $104,346.00. 3) Approximately 1,040 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2021/2022, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $107.42 per hour for an annual estimated amount of 111,716.80. ii. For Express Lanes FSP (91 Express Lanes, 15 Express Lanes): 1) Approximately 1,800 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $97.43 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $175,374.00. 2) Approximately 1,890 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2020/2021, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $102.30 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $193,347.00. 3) Approximately 1,985 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2021/2022, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $107.42 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $213,228.70. 4) Approximately 1,800 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $47.88 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $86,184.00. Approximately 1,890 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2020/2021, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $50.27 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $95,010.30. Approximately 1,985 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2021/2022, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $52.79 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $104,788.15 194 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 C H P#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 4 of 11 iii. For RC SAFE/ Construction FSP: (1) Approximately 650 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $97.43 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $63,329.50. (2) Approximately 900 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2020/2021, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $102.30 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $92,070.00. (3) Approximately 945 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2021/2022, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $107.42 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $101,511.90. (4) Approximately 650 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $47.88 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $31,122.00. Approximately 900 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2020/2021, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $50.27 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $45,243.00. Approximately 945 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2021/2022, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $52.79 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $49,886.55. iv. For Incremental FSP (Temporary/Special and/or Grant Funded): (1) Approximately 800 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $97.43 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $77,944.00. (2) Approximately 840 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2020/2021, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $102.30 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $85,932.00. (3) Approximately 882 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2021/2022, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $107.42 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $94,744.44. 195 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 CH P#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 5 of 11 (4) Approximately 800 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $47.88 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $38,304.00. Approximately 840 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2020/2021, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $50.27 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $42,226.80. Approximately 882 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2021/2022, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $52.79 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $46,560.78. v. For Regular FSP Program (Border Division): 1) Approximately 500 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $97.43 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $48,715.00. 2) Approximately 525 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2020/2021, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $102.30 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $53,707.50. 3) Approximately 550 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2021/2022, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $107.42 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $59,081.00. vi. For RC SAFE/ Construction FSP (Border Division): (1) Approximately 1,476 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $97.43 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $143,806.68. (2) Approximately 1,476 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2019/2020, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $47.88 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $70,670.88. 196 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 CH P#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 6 of 11 vii. RCTC Funding of 1 CHP Officer (Border Division): (1) RCTC agrees to reimburse CHP for one additional full time Officer position for the Agreement term at estimated annual amounts of $221,000.00 for fiscal year 2019/2020, $225,420.00 for fiscal Year 2020/2021 and $229,928.00 for fiscal year 2021/2022. viii. Use of Funds; Total Not to Exceed Contract Value. Amounts Payable to the CHP by RCTC for costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement may be utilized over several fiscal years, and need not be utilized in a single fiscal year by the CHP, so long as the total amount payable under this Agreement is not exceeded. It is understood by both parties that rate increases in salary and benefits are governed by collective bargaining agreements and/or statute and that no advance written notification is necessary prior to implementing the increased rates. In the event CHP is granted a rate increase, RCTC agrees to reimburse CHP at the new hourly rate, but in no event shall the total amount to be reimbursed by RCTC under this Agreement, for any of the services described herein, exceed the maximum contract amount of $3,002,628.98. Fiscal Year begins July 1 and ends on June 30. G. The CHP shall invoice monthly. RCTC agrees to pay CHP within thirty (30) days after the invoice is received. The CHP and RCTC agree that any notice required under this Agreement shall be delivered or mailed to the persons designated below: To CHP: California Highway Patrol Research and Planning Section P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001 ATTENTION: Dwyane Potts Statewide FSP Manager (916) 843-3353 To COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 ATTENTION: Brian Cunanan Program Manager (951) 787-7141 197 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 CHP#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 7 of 11 ARTICLE 3. COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES A. RCTC shall reimburse CHP for those reasonable overtime expenses necessary to support the Riverside County FSP operations as outlined under Article 2, Terms and Conditions, Paragraph F. B. It is agreed that in the event State FSP funds do not become available to RCTC for this Agreement, RCTC may immediately terminate this Agreement with written notice, but shall pay the CHP from other sources any amounts required to cover CHP's cost to the date of Agreement termination. ARTICLE 4. CHP RESPONSIBILITIES A. The CHP has already assigned and staffed, for the dedicated purpose of operating the Riverside County FSP, one and one half (1.5) full-time officers for the dedicated purpose of assisting with Riverside County FSP operations. If the CHP cannot provide the Agreement's specified staffing level, CHP agrees to notify RCTC within thirty (30) days. B. All personnel providing services shall be State employees under the sole discretion, supervision, and regulation of CHP. Said personnel shall work out of the appropriate CHP facilities as designated by CHP. At no time shall any State employee assigned to the Riverside County FSP program be considered employees, agents, officials, or volunteers of RCTC. ARTICLE 5. CHP OVERTIME CHP overtime duties may include, but not be limited to: A. Investigating complaints from the public regarding a Riverside County FSP contractor or driver. B. Performing all necessary driver license and background checks on all Riverside County FSP operators. 198 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 CH P#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 8 of 11 C. Inspecting all Riverside County FSP contractor tow trucks on a periodic basis. D. Performing necessary daily FSP oversight and program management, and providing oversight of the contractors' compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. E. Providing training to all Riverside County FSP contractors and operators. F Assisting RCTC with verifying contractor billing. G. Provide representation for Riverside County FSP Technical Committee. ARTICLE 6. INDEMNIFICATION A. To the extent permitted by law, RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless CHP and all of CHP's appointees, officers, and employees from and against any and all claims, suits, or actions for "injury" (as defined by Government Code section 810.8) caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of RCTC, or RCTC's officers, directors, and employees, arising out of the performance of this Agreement. B. To the extent permitted by law, CHP shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless RCTC and all of RCTC's officers, directors, and employees from and against any and all claims, suits, or actions for "injury" (as defined by Government Code section 810.8) caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of CHP, or CHP's appointees, officers, or employees, arising out of the performance of this Agreement. C. Neither termination of this Agreement nor completion of the acts to be performed under this Agreement shall release any party from its obligation to indemnify as to any claims or cause of action asserted so long as the event(s) upon which such claim or cause of action is predicated shall have occurred subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement and prior to the effective date of Termination or completion. 199 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 CH P#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 9 of 11 ARTICLE 7. AUDITS The contracting parties hereto shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the contract. In addition, RCTC and CHP may be subject to the examination and audit by representatives of either party. The examination and audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of the contract including, but not limited to the costs of administering the contract. RCTC and CHP agree to allow the auditor(s) access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records (Gov. Code Sect. 8546.7, Pub. Contract Code Sect. 10115 et seq., CCR Title 2, Section 1896). RCTC and CHP agree to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after final payment. ARTICLE 8. DISPUTES Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this Agreement which is not disposed of by mutual agreement of the parties may be submitted to an independent arbitrator mutually agreed upon by the CHP and RCTC. The arbitrator's decisions shall be non -binding and advisory only, and nothing herein shall preclude either party, at any time, from pursuing any other legally available course of action, including the filing of a lawsuit. Pending a final decision of a dispute hereunder, both parties shall proceed diligently with the performance of their duties under this Agreement, and such continued performance of their duties under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any rights, legal or equitable, of either party relating to the dispute. ARTICLE 9. RESOLUTION RCTC agrees to provide CHP with a resolution, motion, order or ordinance of the governing body, approving execution of agreements with CHP, and identifying the individual who is authorized to sign the Agreement on behalf of RCTC. ARTICLE 10. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. By and in consideration of the covenants and conditions contained herein, CHP and RCTC do hereby agree as follows: 200 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 CH P#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 10 of 11 i. This Agreement, and any attachments or documents incorporated herein by inclusion or reference, constitutes the complete and entire Agreement between CHP and RCTC and supersedes any prior representations, understandings, communications, commitments, Agreements or proposals, oral or written. ii. This Agreement shall not become effective until: 1) Duly signed by both parties and approved by the Department of General Services Office of Legal Services, if applicable. 2) RCTC has submitted to CHP a copy of the resolution, policy, order, motion, or ordinance from RCTC approving execution of the Agreement and identifying the individual authorized to sign on behalf of RCTC. This space is intentionally left blank. 201 RCTC Agreement #19-45-063-00 — DRAFT v3 C H P#xxxxx Exhibit A, Page 11 of 11 This Agreement is entered into by the parties listed below and shall be effective upon approval by the Department of General Services Office of Legal Services, if applicable. By executing this Agreement, the representatives of CHP and RCTC warrant that they have viewed and fully understand all provisions of this Agreement, and are authorized to bind their respective agencies to all terms of the Agreement's provisions. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of California Highway Patrol RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION P. SLINEY, Assistant Chief Chuck Washington Administrative Services Division Chair Date Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Date 202 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM Budget and Implementation Committee Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Report, January — March 2019 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Report for January — March 2019. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has been monitoring public engagement activities since January 2018 and has been preparing Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Reports. An updated report is provided for the first quarter of 2019, which covers January -March. These quarterly reports are a data -driven approach to measuring progress toward public engagement goals, allow staff to assess the effectiveness of its efforts on an ongoing basis, and provide transparency into how the Commission is using its resources to engage and educate the public. This quarterly report includes three sets of data: 1) Metrics for RCTC's overall public engagement activities, including website use and access; website top pages visited; email notifications; social media likes, engagement and reach; and public sentiment 2) Metrics for RCTC's Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project public engagement activities, including email activity, website sessions, and social media. 3) New for this report are metrics for RCTC's #RebootMyCommute public engagement program, which launched on March 6, 2019. The quarterly report will continue to evolve as staff refines its approaches to measuring public engagement activities and in response to any feedback from Commissioners. In addition, as additional significant capital projects begin, such as the State Route 60 Truck Lanes project, staff will provide project -related metrics. Report highlights for this quarter follow and are attached in a graphical format to this agenda item. It is important to note the metrics again reflect an increase in paid digital advertising during Agenda Item 10 203 this first quarter. This increase in digital advertising expenditures has resulted in a significant jump in some of the metrics. RCTC Overall Public Engagement 1) Website a. For the quarter, there were 23,818 website sessions, a 16 percent increase from last quarter's 20,614 sessions. There also were 13,774 unique users, an increase of 8 percent compared to the previous quarter's 12,719 unique users. b. Close to one-third of the visitors accessed the website using a direct search (keying in rctc.org). Another 42 percent used organic searches, such as Google. Others used social media (19 percent), and website referrals (8 percent). This data is very similar to last quarter's metrics. c. Website access via desktop versus mobile remained stable. The first quarter showed 54 percent accessing the website through a desktop computer and 46 percent using mobile devices. Last quarter, the ratio was 55 percent to 45 percent. d. The homepage continues to be the most frequently visited page within the website, followed by the "Meetings and Agendas" page. For the first time, the "Employment" page was among the top four pages, along with the "Santa Ana River Trail Project Phase One" page. 2) Social Media a. Facebook: At the end of the quarter, the Facebook page had 8,412 likes, a 2 percent increase over last quarter's 8,265 likes. The page also had 43,322 forms of engagement, such as likes, comments and shares, a 228 percent increase from last quarter's 13,227 forms of engagement. Facebook also had 5,338,593 impressions, which is the number of times that RCTC's content was displayed in news feeds. This was a very large increase — 426 percent — from last quarter's 1,014,855 impressions. This increase likely was a result of the significant increase in paid digital advertising this quarter. b. Twitter: RCTC's Twitter page showed a 3 percent increase in followers, from 1,085 to 1,117. Engagement jumped 1,668 percent, from 301 forms of engagement to 5,321. Impressions also showed a large gain of 1,506 percent — from 48,761 to 783,246. Similar to Facebook, these gains probably are due to the growth in digital advertising. c. Instagram: The Instagram page grew 23 percent, from 302 to 372 followers. Engagement increased by 25 percent, from 372 forms of engagement to 465. Impressions grew 28 percent to a total of 8,417, compared to last quarter's 6,594 impressions. d. Overall, public sentiment was positive, with the exception of comments received in early February in response to posts related to RCTC's federal funding application for improvements to the 91 corridor. RCTC received positive comments about the Coachella special events train and the #RebootMyCommute campaign. Agenda Item 10 204 3) RCTC's The Point: RCTC continues to produce content for its online blog, The Point, and distributes this information and other news via email to subscribers. RCTC's subscriber rate grew 62 percent, from 1,777 to 2,884. The large increase in subscribers is due in part to the #RebootMyCommute campaign that started March 6. Thirty-five percent of subscribers opened The Point, and 7 percent clicked on links to learn more. Interstate 15 Express Lanes Construction Public Engagement 1) Emails: There were a total of 96 new email sign-ups for the quarter compared to last quarter's 125 — a decrease of 30 percent, and 14 email inquiries received, the same as last quarter's inquiries. 2) Website: The website experienced a drop in visits from 8,657 last quarter to 5,367 this quarter, a decrease of 38 percent. 3) Social Media: The project's Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts all showed small gains. The Facebook page grew to 2,030 likes from 1,933 likes last quarter, a 5 percent increase. Twitter increased slightly from 219 followers to 220, a .5 percent increase. Instagram followers increased 9 percent from 351 to 384. #RebootMy Commute Public Engagement 1) Community Outreach: Two Tele-town Hall meetings were held March 19 and 20. These attracted 7,539 participants, 52 phone discussions, and nine voice messages. Staff also took part in three community events and engaged with 160 residents at these events. 2) News Media: Ten news stories featured the "Reboot" campaign. Advertisements were placed in The Press -Enterprise and The Desert Sun, with a combined print ad circulation of 461,702 and digital ad circulation of 156,250. The video ad was aired 16 times on television station KESQ. 3) Website: The RebootMyCommute.org website had 11,666 sessions with 10,322 unique visitors. A total of 308 comment forms have been received to date. 4) Messages: The campaign generated a large number of new subscribers to RCTC's The Point newsletter —1,090 new subscribers via email and 74 via text message. There were 5,205 brochure copies distributed to city halls, community centers, libraries and senior centers across Riverside County. 5) Social Media Advertising: A number of #RebootMyCommute social media ads ran since the campaign launched on March 6. On Facebook, 43,961 people viewed the videos in their entirety, 17,493 clicked through to learn more, there were 1,311 direct engagements with viewers, 2,175,674 impressions, and a reach of 301,257. On Twitter, full video views totaled 7,613, click-throughs totaled 1,989, direct engagements were 54, and impressions totaled 368,225. On Instagram, 15,652 people watched the videos, 1,955 clicked to learn more, there were 1,193 direct engagements, 1,567,740 impressions, and a reach of 212,833. The "Reboot" videos posted to YouTube also generated considerable interest with 575,087 full views, 8,341 clicks, and 2,288,256 impressions. Online sentiment related to the social media ads was strongly positive starting with the campaign Agenda Item 10 205 launch on March 6 and building through mid -March. A second round of social media advertising launched on March 21, generating additional positive sentiment. Attachments: 1) RCTC Overall Public Engagement Metrics 2) 1-15 Express Lanes Public Engagement Metrics 3) #RebootMyCommute Public Engagement Metrics Agenda Item 10 206 ATTACHMENT 1 Public Engagement Metrics: Q1 Overall Social Media Sentiment 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 - 0.5 -1 1/1 1/15 1/29 2/12 2/26 3/12 3/26 2/7 (-) Federal funding application for 91 highway improvements 2/25 (+) Support for Coachella special events train 3/6 (+) Response to #RebootMyCommute campaign Social Media Eblasts Subscribers 2,884 Average Open 31% Average Click 7% 13 Instagram Followers 372 Engagement 465 Impressions 8,417 +23 % +25% January - March 2019 1 23,818 Number of Sessions Top Channels +76% 13,774 Number of Unique Users +8 % Direct (30.7%) — 4,426 • Organic (41.9%) — 6,034 Social (19.1 %) — 2,759 Referral (8.3%) —1,189 Differences Paid advertising increased in Q1. Top Pages Visited Homepage is #1 most visited page 2 Meetings and Agendas 3 Employment 4 Santa Ana River Trail Project Phase One Desktop vs Mobile Users 54% • • • Desktop Mobile 46% 207 • EXAAESS LANES Email List Sign -Ups 15 Express Lanes Project Outreach Metrics Number of Sign -Ups 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 69 - 45 589 537 305 209 i61 386 125 96 ■ Website Visits Website Visits 10000 — 8000 — 6000 — 4000 — 2000 — 0 845 3,924 2,790 3,033 2,145 2,243 8,657 7,744 _ 5,460 5,367 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Jan 2019 - March 2019 Emails Received Number of Emails 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 7 13 12 1 8 8 14 1 15 1 27 Social Media Likes/Follows 1 2500 — c 2000 0 • 1500 Y J c 1000 `m 3 500 Z 0- 21 127 195 932 1 979 1 1,297 1,933 2,030 1,665 II 1,477 b Qeo a O6" sac 4\2;t 69 C c / 208 • Facebook Page Likes Twitter Followers (Account Opened 02/05/18) • Instagram Followers (Account Opened 02/05/18) ATTACHMENT 3 Pr"'TTHEFWIF!AVU #RebootMyCommute Metrics Community Outreach Tele-town Halls 7,539 52 Participants Comments Voice Messages Community Booths 500 Event Attendance 160 People Engaged 10 Media Stories Publications 461,702 156,250 Print Ad Digital Ad Circulation Circulation Television 16 Video Ad Airs Website 11,666 10,322 308 Number of Number of Form Sessions Unique Users Submissions Messages Email 1,090 Subscribers Text 74 Subscribers Print Piece 5,205 Delivered Online Sentiment March 2019 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 3/1 -0.5 3/8 RCTC Overall TrendVu March 1 - March 31, 2019 3/15 3/22 ❑ Organic & Digital Ad Content ■ Organic Content 3/29 3/6 (+) #RebootMyCommute campaign launches. 3/17 (+) Round 1 ends. Ad data is used to optimize targeting and messaging. 3/21 (+) Round 2 #RebootMyCommute campaign ads launch. Social Media Ads Facebook Video Views (100%) 43,961 Clicks 17,493 Direct Engagements 1,311 Impressions 2,175,674 Reach 301,257 C:1 Twitter Video Views (wow 7,613 Clicks 1,989 Direct Engagements 54 Impressions 368,225 O Instagram Video Views (100%) 15,652 Clicks 1,955 Direct Engagements 1,193 Impressions 1,567,740 Reach 212,833 O YouTube Video Views (100%) 575,087 Clicks 8,341 Impressions 2,288,256 209 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PUBLIC EN G AG BVI ENT M EIRIC S Quarterly Report: January -March 2019 Commission Meeting May 8, 2019 Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager Importance of Metrics "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Peter Drucker • Data -driven approach to public engagement • Began tracking metrics in January 2018 • Make adjustments to strategies, goals • Analyze strengths, weaknesses • Compare over time • Boost transparency 1 2 Three Sets of Data Overall public engagement activities 1-15 Express Lanes Project #RebootMyCommute program, March only 3 O Overall Public Engagement Home it Moments ROTC OiTheRCTC We deliver mobility solutions to improve life in Riverside County. Responsible steward of voter -approved Measure A 1/26 sales tax for transportation. O° Riverside County t9 rctcorg Joined August 2008 I� 346 Photos and videos Tweets Fallowing Followers Likes 992 106 1.117 290 Tweets Tweets at replies Media OS RCTC ©TheRCTC • Apr 15 Catch a ride on RTA and win movie tickets! buftly/2HZ3MM *RideandWin #RTA *Movie CATCH A RIDE .. , . AND van MOVIE TICKETS Itrnrnm LET'S GO+. Search Twitter OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RCTC �TtIeRCTC Home Photos Videos Posts Events About Community Info and Ads Email Sign Up �+ Liked 1 Following /► Share • • • • RCTC April 4 at 8:34 AM - 0 RCTC makes it possible for Riverside County fans to ride Metrolink to Angels Stadium for $7 or less round-trip- Leam more on The Paint: https:llwww. rctc-org/angels-express-2a19/ RCTC-ORC Take the train out to the balllgame...on the Angels Express! RCTC makes it possible for Riverside County fans to ride Metrolink to... 00 Jenny Larios and 36 others n5 Like Q Comment 2 Comments 13 Shares Share Most Relevant • • • • Write a comment-.- o� Trina Martinez Claudia Gonzalez Stumbaugh date night!! Like • Reply • 1w m •o• 1 Reply 4 Social Media Facebook Page Likes 8,412 Engagement 43,322 Impressions 5,338,593 I nsta g ra m Followers 372 Engagement 465 Impressions 8,417 Reflects changes from previous quarter, Oct -Dec 2018 5 Facebook Sentiment 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 - 0.5 -1 1/1 1 /15 1 /29 2/12 2/26 3/12 3/26 2/7 {-} Federal funding application for 91 highway improvements 2/25 (+) Support for Coachella special events train 3/6 (+) Response to #RebootMyCommute campaign 6 We b site 23,818 Number of Sessions Top Channels +16% • 13,774 Number of Unique Users +8% Direct (30.7%) — 4,426 Organic (41.9%) — 6,034 Social (19.1 %) — 2,759 Referral (8.3%) — 1,189 Differences Paid advertising increased in Q1. Top Pages Visited Homepage is #1 most visited page 2 Meetings and Agendas 3 Employment 4 Santa Ana River Trail Project Phase One Desktop Vs Mobile Users Desktop Mobile 46% • 7 The Point &Newsletter Subscribers 2,884 Average Open 31% Average Click 7% Your source for transportation information in Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Added to Help Manage Super Bloom Traffic ROTC to provide weekend roadside assistance an Interstate 15. READ MORE 8 EXPRESS U1NES e 1-15 Express Lanes Project • 9 EXPRESS U1NES Social Media Serial Media Likes/Fellows Number of Likes/Fo 2500 — 2000 1500 1000 500 0- 21 127 195 932 979 1,297 1,477 1.933 2,030 o``b J 0t`'1 0'`'1 a'`� 0``\ o``9) oN9) oN`b oN`b o``c' ti ti ti ti � ti ti el, ti ti OoG ��� ��� ��� OeG �1 ��� ��� OeG 4\�� O� �� P� �� O� �� P� �� O� Facebook Page Likes Twitter Followers (Account Opened 02/05/18) • Instagram Followers (Account Opened 02/05/18) 10 EXPRESS U1NES New Email Registrants Email List Sign -Ups Number of Sign -Ups 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 45 114 0 703 1,240 1,401 1,706 1,915 2,426 2,522 2,301 'V 'V ryo no ryo ryo �yo �yo 4ec," et`�t �J� �eQ Qe�' lac ��� �eQ Qec' P? OC )ate P� O 11 EXPRESS MU Email Inquiries Emails Received al co G 2 120 .cs m .v 90 m ix vi E W m i- 150 — 60 30 0- 7 20 48 62 77 104 118 132 �O�b �10�1 {LO,�'1 tiO,\'1 QeG %' ��� �e,j �• ,k' �. P P9 �a* P� V •' ON`O G` Qe 12 EXPRESS MU We bsite Visits Website Visits Website visits to Date 50000 40000 30000 20000 Lco 10000 845 0 5,780 3,635 � 42,208 36,841_ 28,184 20,440 14,980 8,81311,056 � �o 90 95) `yo �o �o NN r y (o Oa j �`?)N§N Q 0(' a� 9 e(' a� 06; 2"'; 06L 13 #rebootmy COMMUTE Q#RebootMyCommute Program (March 1-31, 2019) • #rebootmyir ` COMMUTE` Social Media Advertising Facebook Video Views (1 o%) 43,961 Clicks 17,493 Direct Engagements 1,311 impressions 2,175,674 Reach 301,257 1 Twitter Video Views (100%) 7,613 Clicks 1,989 Direct Engagements 54 Impressions 368,225 Instagram Video Views (100%) 15,652 Clicks 1,955 Direct Engagements 1,193 Impressions 1,567,740 Reach 212,833 0 1 YouTube Video Views mow 575,087 Clicks 8,341 Impressions 2,288,256 15 #COMMUTE Facebook Sentiment 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 3/1 -0.5 3/8 March 1 - March 31, 2019 3/15 If 3/22 ❑Organic & Digital Ad Content in Organic Content 3/29 3/6 (+) #RebootMyCommute campaign launches. 3/17 (+) Round 1 ends. Ad data is used to optimize targeting and messaging. 3/21 {+} Round 2 #RebootMyCommute campaign ads launch. 16 #rebootmy ` COMMUTE Media Mentions THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE SIGN OF FOR NEWSLE11ER5 EE019aN SUBSC9IEE • SLIESGRIBER SERVICES SUBSCRIBE NOW News Local Naves Sports ThingsTa Do Business Dbituarles Opinion LOCAL NEWS Tired of Riverside County traffic? officials want to hear from you, even on SUBSCRBE NOW Instagram #RebootMyCommute aims to plot projects for the next 10 years — and talks could involve a new tax. 00000 Morning wm:nu ers travel on the Al Frzesay near Lino* Avenue n CCCCF.x - . -- [he pubic on what fr....). and earnst irnpruvermas should be pursu+sd ov_• . _ _..-. $74FF Any Breakfast Burrito and Drink a.:. w e. x,wti-.:R.a CAP Futio M8d1S0a St. Rivorslde, CA 92504 951-251-9700 Get the latest news delivered dolly! SUBSCRIBE I 0 Media Stories Publications 461,702 156.250 Print Ad Digital Ad Circulation Circulation Television 16 Video Ad Airs By DAVIO OO WNEY I ddawP9ypSP119.Carn I The Press-Entefprise PUELISICO Morct [I, 201E at 6.90 am I UPDATED: Moral t2,201E at Ise pm w Fallow Us 17 #rebootmyir ` COMMUTE\ Community Outreach Tele-town Halls 7,539 52 Participants Comments Voice Messages Community Booths Email 500 Event Attendance 160 People Engaged 1,090 Subscribers Text 74 Subscribers Print Piece 5,205 Delivered 18 #rebootmy COMMUTE` Website Let's start a conversation! We'd love to hear about the projects that matter most to you. Sign up to keep the information flowing, and use t RebootMyCommute to share your stories, photos and videos on social media. Southbound I-15. Lake Elsinore #RebootMyCommute 3outhbound 71, Corona 4RebootMyCommute Freeway Service Patrol helps motorist4RebootMyCom .., 1 .666 Number of Sessions 10.322 308 Number of Unique Users Form Submissions 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUESTIONS AGENDA ITEM 11 ORAL REPORT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager Bryce Johnston, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project Public Outreach Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report on the public outreach efforts for the State Route 60 Truck Lanes project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff will present a SR-60 Truck Lanes Project public outreach update. Agenda Item 11 210 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES Project Update May 8, 2019 Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager Bryce Johnston, Capital Projects Manager State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Location o 0„,d� i Spr�9s,Qd Moreno no Riverside County a imesa Oak Valley Pkwy Beaumont • Widen 4.5 miles of Route 60, both directions • Gilman Springs Road to 1.4 miles west of Jack Rabbit Trail • Unincorporated Riverside County between Moreno Valley, Beaumont 2 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Features • Add eastbound truck climbing lane • Add westbound truck descending lane • Widen shoulders to standard widths: — 12' outside shoulders — 11' inside shoulders • Flatten roadway curves • Increase median barrier height • Create wildlife crossings 3 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Truck Line Current Condition Truck Lame Future Condition 4 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Funding State = $76,055,000 Federal = $47,434,000 r Local = $11,186,000 Project Total = $134,675,000 5 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Purpose • Enhance safety • Separate trucks • Reduce traffic congestion 6 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Accident Rates per Million Miles Traveled .6 µNegN4 60 Truck Lanes Statewide Project area Average Eastbound .6 Statewide Average 7 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Public Outreach • Stakeholder outreach: cities, county, Caltrans, emergency responders, trucking groups, tribes, motorists, desert resorts • Briefings to Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, business groups, HOAs English/Spanish communication Changeable message signs billboards Construction updates Social media (@60TruckLanes) and videos Open houses News media, including desert stations Helpline: 866-413-6060 8 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Upcoming Briefings/Public Events Activity ocatio Emergency Responders/Transit Briefing 1 May 16 Beaumont Emergency Responders/Transit Briefing 2 May 23 Moreno Valley Calimesa City Council Briefing May 20 Calimesa Beaumont City Council Briefing May 21 Beaumont San Jacinto City Council Briefing June 4 San Jacinto Banning City Council Briefing June 11 Banning Public Open House 1 June 5 (5:30-7:30 p.m.) Beaumont Public Open House 2 June 12 (5:30-7:30 p.m.) Moreno Valley Groundbreaking Ceremony To be announced Beaumont 9 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Preliminary Schedule Estimated Start Late May 2019 New Lanes Open Late 2021 10 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES 6-Month Lane Closure • Close one westbound lane — July to December 2019 • One lane will remain open • Will save one year of construction time • Freeway Service Patrol will be provided • CHP construction support • Extensive advanced public outreach • Note: Additional nighttime lane closures to occur during off-peak hours 4 ........I.,s, ...q. 11 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Westbound Lane Closure Area 12 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Equipment Size/Scale 13 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Moveable Barrier • Install moveable k-rail within existing median barrier, 1 mile apart • Will expedite emergency response 14 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Why Not Use a "Zipper?" 15 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Neighboring Projects Coordination with Caltrans, County of Riverside, corridor cities: — I-10 Rehabilitation, Beaumont to Hwy 111 — I-10 Pavement Project, Yucaipa — Gilman Springs Safety Corridor — Potrero interchange, City of Beaumont Have briefed 5 corridor cities; scheduling presentations to City Councils this spring 16 State Route 60 TRUCK LANES Stay Connected ft, rctc.org/60trucklanes 866.413.6060 60trucklanes@rctc.org @60trucklanes 17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUESTIONS AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 8, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: LoreIle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Purpose of the Study In 2015, the Commission and the County of Riverside (County) filed a lawsuit against the city of Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview, the developer of the World Logistics Center (WLC) project. The lawsuit challenged the environmental impact report to ensure adequate mitigation to impacts created by the WLC project. The WLC is proposed to be located in the eastern portion of the city, southerly of State Route 60, between Redlands Boulevard and Gilman Springs Road as shown in Figure 1 below. The project would encompass over 2,610 acres with 40 million square feet for a large-scale logistics operation and is estimated to attract over 14,000 truck trips and 68,721 trips daily. In July 2016, a settlement agreement was reached between the Commission, the County, the city of Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview. A key provision of the settlement required that the four parties each contribute $250,000, for a total of $1 million, for the Commission to conduct a regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics -related regional fee, including the fee structure and implementing mechanism. A result of the study could be a new fee program that would, for example, set a fee on new distribution center warehouses, based on facility size, to help pay for highway improvements. This fee would differ from existing Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Programs in that it would only focus on highway projects, as compared to the regional TUMF Programs, which collect funds for regional arterials and local streets. Per the settlement agreement, if the County or at least 75 percent of the Commission's member cities adopt a regional warehouse fee within two years after a final court judgment is issued, Highland Fairview will pay 65 cents per square foot for each operating warehouse within the WLC. If no regional fee is adopted, the fee would be 50 cents per square foot. Proceeds would be used for projects identified as part of the regional truck study. Agenda Item 12 211 The purpose of this item and staff's recommendation is to approve the study. Implementing a fee program would require additional action by the Commission and local jurisdictions. Figure 1: Location of Project EUCALYPTUS AVE EUCALYPTUS AL'E DRACAEAAVE COTTON6VODDAVF MY AVF N ALESSANDRO BLVD PROPOSED WORLD LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT EUCALYPTI IS AVE 8 O BRODIAEA AVE CACTUS AVE +r r : World Logistics Center- Specific Plan Boundary V'%J A porton of the Moreno Highlands Speo is Plan 212-1 located oulside of the Proposed World LogiSkS Center Speorrid Ran Boundary {Proposed Open Space Zone) •`'_j Not a Part i _] City Boundary iu LS^iANORO BLVD 3 Source: City of Moreno Valley Summary of Completed Tasks At its January 2017 meeting, the Commission approved the award for a regional truck study and development and implementation of a regional logistics mitigation fee to WSP USA, formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. The study was kicked off in spring 2017 and a study advisory team was created to review and discuss the data and deliverables provided by the consultant team. The study advisory team consisted of staff representatives from the Commission, County, city of Moreno Valley, Highland Fairview, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Caltrans, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association. Agenda Item 12 212 Existing and Future Conditions Analysis and Funding and Cost Analysis At its June 2018 Commission meeting, staff and the project consultant provided an update on the study. At that time, the Existing and Future Conditions Analysis and Funding and Cost Analysis were completed and concluded the following: • Existing and future warehousing related land use inventory was needed to forecast trips for each type of warehousing activity (i.e. high -cube such as fulfillment centers/parcel hubs, industrial parks, etc); • Sufficient data sources are available to justify the completion of a Nexus Study; • The SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its forecasted modeling was found to be the most comprehensive data source to evaluate existing and future conditions; • Other datasets such as SCAQMD's Warehouse Study and ITE's Trip Generation Model were evaluated but had limitations such as lack of forecasting data and concentrations on certain warehousing activities such as high -cube; • Diagnostic tests using Caltrans' truck count data were conducted to check that the SCAG model provided reasonable forecasts and were found to be pretty accurate; • Origin -destination patterns were also collected using cellphone GPS data to analyze patterns within the County and between other regions; • Origin -destination data reveals that about half of the heavy-duty truck trips in Riverside County either begin or end in the County, about two-thirds of the medium heavy-duty truck trips begin or end in the County, and highways in the County have the largest share of truck traffic for both heavy-duty and medium -duty trips in the SCAG region; • The SCAG 2016 RTP model was used to determine traffic flows in the AM and PM peak hours, which is critical to identifying the attributable deficiencies by logistic activities; • Logistics warehousing is estimated to grow in Riverside County by about 37.3 million square feet by 2040; and • Future deficiencies in the highway network caused by logistics growth were identified in western county (see Figure 2). Figure 2 identifies deficiencies based on new warehousing development as forecasted in the 2016 SCAG RTP. Agenda Item 12 213 Figure 2: Identified Deficiencies Based on New Warehousing Development Source: 2040 forecast from 2016 SCAG RTP Cost Estimation Methodology Proposed projects to mitigate the logistics growth could range from the addition of an auxiliary lane at on -and -off ramps, or, the widening of a mainline. Conceptual costs were developed based on the quantification of construction elements in conceptual designed using Google imaging data. Existing capacity deficiencies, pass -through trips in Riverside County, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned or have been completed (i.e. SR-91 Capital Improvement Program or French Valley Parkway Projects) were excluded from the calculation of the potential fee. Total cost of infrastructure improvements is estimated at $383.3 million (Table 1), of which the attributable share to logistics growth is about $47.8 million, or 12 percent (Table 2). Agenda Item 12 214 Table 1: Total Conceptual Cost Estimate ROTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Capacity Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimate Summary ID Route Name Dir Beginning End Total Conceptual Project Cost Findings 1 1-15 NB SR 79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-15 at Rancho California Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of 1-1511-215 Split Mitigated by French Valley Parkway Project 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,00D Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-15 at Baxter 4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave Mitigated by 1-15 Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) 5 Norco Drl6th St Limonite Ave Mitigated by 1-15 Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) 6 SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Mitigated by 1-15 Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) Limonite Ave Norco Drl6th 7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000 Cast reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-15 at Temescal Canyon 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-15 at Cajalco 9 SR-60 EB Rubidcux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 Market St Main St 1 D 1-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,000 Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Linellowa $42,212,000 Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-215 at HighgrovelCenter 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 Cast reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-215 at Perris, Nuevo, Placentia (MCP), Ramona and Harley Knox 14 SR-91 NB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off -Ramp Mitigated by SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 SR-71 Sertas Club Dr Off -Ramp 15 Sertas Club Dr Off -Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off -Ramp Mitigated by SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project 16 On -Ramp from SB-1-15 On Ramp from NB- 1-15 $7,611,000 17 McKinley St Oft Ramp Pierce St Mitigated by SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 19 SB Sertas Club Dr Oft Ramp Lane Add at SR 71 Mitigated by SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Linellowa Sum Total: $385,335,000 Agenda Item 12 215 Table 2: Total Logistics Cost Share ROTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Capacity Improvement Project Adjusted Conceptual Cost Share Summary 1D Route Name Qir Beginning End Total Conceptual Project Cost Logistics Attributable Share Logistics Cost Share 1 1-15 NB SB SR-79 5 Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 0.7% $258,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000 0.3% $19,000 7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,826,000 2.2% $820,000 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 1.4% $142,000 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market 51 $40,234,000 31.8% $12,802,000 Market St Main 5t 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,400 34.0% $7,963,000 Central AvelWatkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 13.3% $7,317,000 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 11.8% $4,978,000 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 57.10/0 $7,658,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 4.4% $4,235,000 16 SR 91 NB on -Ramp from SB-1-15 On Ramp from NB- 1-15 $7,611,000 7.5% $571,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 8.3% $1,078,000 Sum Total: $385,335,000 12.4% $47,841,000 Agenda Item 12 216 A potential fee could be up to $1.28 per square foot (SF) of gross floor area based on the projected growth of about 37.3 million square feet of new warehousing anticipated by 2040 per the 2016 SCAG RTP. Nexus Study The California Mitigation Fee Act requires that an impact fee program fulfill the following: ✓ Establish a rational nexus/reasonable relationship between the infrastructure need and development impact ✓ Fees must be roughly proportional with the impacts of development and the cost of the infrastructure; and ✓ A development does not have to exclusively benefit from the infrastructure but can substantially benefit from the overall improvement in regional mobility. The Nexus Study fulfills these requirements and builds upon the data compiled from the Existing and Future Conditions Analysis and Cost Analysis to establish the relationship between growth related to logistics facilities and truck traffic and the improvements needed to mitigate such growth. The study process includes the confirmation of expected growth in population and employment in the region, and specifically growth in warehousing and logistics uses in the county, applies the regional travel demand model to generate traffic data outputs to identify future capacity deficiencies in the highway network (Table 1 above), and then determines the proportion of those deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics related development (Table 2 above). The resultant information is then cross-referenced with project cost information to determine the overall cost of mitigating logistics impacts as the basis for estimating a fee. That cost is then divided by the anticipated rate of growth in new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County to determine the fair share fee amount, as shown in Table 3 below. Table 3: Potential Logistics Impact Fee Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee for Riverside County Logistics Cost Share of Freeway Mitigation $47,841,000 Growth in Warehouse Gross Floor Area in Square Feet 37,332,179 Fee per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area up to $1.28 Agenda Item 12 217 Public Outreach In addition to working with the study advisory team, staff also provided updates on the study to the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of Public Works Directors and City Engineers, and other regional bodies such as the WRCOG City Managers TAC and, the SCAG Transportation Committee. Stakeholder workshops were held on September 28, 2018 and December 7, 2018, to target public and private stakeholders, such as local and regional agencies and the development community. The workshops were advertised via the website, social media, the study advisory team, and partnering -agency distribution lists. In addition, a webpage for the study, located at www.rctc.org/feestudy was also made accessible for stakeholders to submit comments and review study materials. There was a total of about 42 attendees at both workshops. The majority of the comments and questions received were general in nature regarding who the fee would apply to and what types of projects the fee revenues would be allocated towards. Some comments were more technical regarding the methodology and calculation of the fee and were addressed with specific parties during study advisory meetings. Potential Locational Effects of a Logistics Fee The study also analyzed the potential locational impacts a logistics mitigation fee might have on economic development in the county. Research indicates that a logistics mitigation fee would likely have limited impacts on demand for warehouse development in Riverside County. For example, it is estimated that total development costs in Western Riverside County is about $121.10 per square feet for industrial buildings and a proposed logistics fee of up to $1.28 would increase the total by about 1 percent. In comparison, the total development costs in Los Angeles County is about 55 percent higher than the Inland Empire. Additionally, impact fees are generally higher in San Bernardino County compared to Riverside County, although fees vary widely. A potential logistics fee of $1.28/SF in Riverside County would make the average for Western Riverside County about $0.50 higher than the San Bernardino County average as shown in Figure 2 below. Agenda Item 12 218 Figure 2: Current Average Development Impact Fee Costs Per Square Foot and Proportions in Inland Empire Jurisdictions s6 Ss - S4 - S3 - S2 St $9 r zu WRCOG Average 4599 6'% 27% Coachella Valley Average 6[% 27% San Bernardino County Average a Regional Transportation Fees ■ Water and Sewer Fees ■ Other City Fees School Fees • Other Area/Regional Fees Source: WRCOG, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 Next Steps Staff is recommending the Commission approve the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study. The approval of the Nexus Study does not constitute the pursuit of a fee program, but rather fulfills the Commission's obligation to complete the analysis per the settlement agreement. Should the Commission decide to pursue a fee program, staff would return at a later time for the approval of an implementation plan including a proposal on the establishment of a fee administrator. The Commission's current governing authority does not allow for fees to be collected directly by the Commission; therefore, should a program be implemented the Commission would either have to create a Joint Powers Authority or another regional governing body would have to be responsible for administering the fee program. If implemented, the formal adoption and public hearing process for the Nexus Study and fee program would take place. Fiscal Impact There is no financial impact for this item. Attachments: 1) Nexus Study, April 2019 2) Existing and Future Conditions, October 2017 3) Supplemental: Existing and Future Conditions, March 2018 4) Funding and Cost Analysis, June 2018 5) Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee, April 2019 Agenda Item 12 219 ATTACHMENT 1 RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND REGIONAL LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE Final Technical Memorandum: Task 3 - Nexus Study Prepared for : RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Prepared by: In partnership with FEHR4 PEERS Revised: April 2019 221 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Table of Contents 1. Introduction, Background and Purpose 1 1.1. Nexus Study Process 2 2. Forecasting Logistics Growth And Traffic Impacts 4 2.1. Forecasting Logistics Growth 4 2.2. Forecasting Traffic Impacts 9 2.2.1. SCAG Model Adjustment and Re -Validation 10 2.2.2. Forecasting Traffic Volumes and Identifying Traffic Impacts 12 2.3. Attributing Capacity Deficiencies to New Logistics Development 18 2.3.1. Percent Attributable to Future Development 18 2.3.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Trucks in Riverside County 18 2.3.3. Percent of Freeway Capacity Deficiencies Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County 19 3. Determining Freeway Mitigation Concepts and Costs 22 3.1. Assessing Project Limits 22 3.2. Review of Currently Funded/Programmed Improvements 23 3.3. Development of Project Concepts 25 3.4. Project Cost Estimating 26 3.4.1. Project Costs Attributable to New Logistics Development 29 4. Funding Gap Analysis 30 4.1. Riverside County Strategic Assessment 30 4.2. Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 31 4.3. Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) 32 4.4. Summary of Available Funding from All Sources 32 5. Logistics Mitigation Fee and Nexus Determination 34 5.1. Logistics Mitigation Fee Calculation 34 5.2. Nexus Determination 35 5.2.1. Purpose of the Fee 35 5.2.2. Use of Fee Revenues 35 222 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 5.2.3. Use/Type-of-Development Relationship 36 5.2.4. Need/Type-of-Development Relationship 36 5.2.5. Proportionality Relationship 37 5.3. Conclusions 37 6. Appendices 38 Appendix A — Capacity Improvement Concept Plans A-1 Appendix B — Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables B-1 223 NNW RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study List of Figures Figure 1-1: Flowchart of Key Steps in the Nexus Study Process 3 Figure 2-1: EDD Warehouse and Other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends (Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA) 5 Figure 2-2: Transportation Employment - Caltrans Transportation Economics Branch Forecast vs. Extrapolated EDD Trend (Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA) 6 Figure 2-3: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways 10 Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Total Traffic Volumes 11 Figure 2-5: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Adjusted Total Traffic Volumes 12 Figure 2-6: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour14 Figure 2-7: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour 14 Figure 2-8: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour15 Figure 2-9: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour 15 Figure 2-10: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) 17 Figure 2-11: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity 21 List of Tables Table 2-1: Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 7 Table 2-2: Warehouse Growth in Riverside County, 2016-2040 7 Table 2-3: Warehouse Growth by TAZs in Riverside County (in thousand square feet gross floor area and percentage) 8 Table 2.4: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) 16 Table 2-5: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County 20 Table 3-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects 23 Table 3-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program 25 Table 3-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates 28 Table 3-4: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Logistics Cost Share 29 Table 4-1: Freeway Funding Program Amount (in millions) and Risk, 2016 to 2039 31 Table 4-2: Projected RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions), 2017 to 2040 32 Table 4-3: Projected RCTC Funding from SB1 (in millions), 2017 to 2040 32 Table 4-4: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions) 33 Table 5-1: Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee Calculation 34 iii 224 NNW RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Despite the recent slow -down in the rate of development in the region due to the lasting effects of the economic recession, Western Riverside County remains one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The proximity to Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego, the availability of comparatively affordable land, and the generally high quality of life in area communities each contribute to making Riverside County an attractive place to live and work. However, the continuing rapid rate of growth in the region exceeds the capacity of existing financial resources to meet demand for transportation infrastructure. Traditional transportation funding sources, Measure A and the respective Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs, as well motor fuel tax revenues generated by the recent enactment of Senate Bill 1(SB1), substantially contribute to building and maintaining transportation infrastructure, although these funding sources are considered insufficient to address all the area's transportation funding needs into the future. This is particularly the case for the freeway system in Western Riverside County where existing needs, anticipated future growth and the fluctuating increase in land and material costs exceed the capability of current local, state and federal programs to meet future funding needs. The projected growth in Western Riverside County can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial additional investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for the freeway system which provides the foundation for the area's transportation system and is recognized as an essential element for sustaining the regional economy. Further increases in congestion and degradation in mobility on the freeway system will have a considerable impact on the economy and overall quality of life in Western Riverside County. The impact of trucks and other traffic associated with warehousing and logistics uses has increasingly emerged as an issue of concern in Riverside County as more of these developments are located within the county. The issue of adequate mitigation of the impacts of these uses on regional freeways recently culminated with a multi -party lawsuit involving mitigation of the Highland Fairview development in Moreno Valley. As part of a settlement agreement between the respective parties to the lawsuit, it was agreed that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) would undertake a regional truck study to verify the cumulative level of impact of warehousing and logistics uses on the freeway system in Riverside County as the basis for establishing a regional logistics mitigation fee. This Nexus Study represents a critical milestone in the RCTC Truck Study and Development and Implementation of Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee work effort. The RCTC Truck Study and Development and Implementation of Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee is intended to verify the anticipated rate of growth in warehousing and logistics -related development in Riverside County, and to quantify the associated level of traffic impacts on the Riverside County highway system because of the expected growth in warehousing and logistics 1 225 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study activities. In quantifying impacts, the study is also intended to determine the amount that each new warehousing or logistics development should pay in lieu of completing actual freeway improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts specifically associated with truck trips generated by new warehousing and logistics developments. The findings of this study are intended to provide the framework for implementing a program to collect impact fees that will contribute to mitigating the truck traffic impacts associated with new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County. Such a program can help to ensure that all new logistics -related development approved in Riverside County will bear a proportional fair share of the cost of building transportation infrastructure to address future transportation needs. This technical memorandum represents the third in a series of documents that will verify the rate of new warehousing and logistics related developments in Riverside County, the associated truck trip generation rates and cumulative regional traffic impacts, the cost to mitigate these impacts, and the fair share basis for collecting a potential fee. This document summarizes the technical evaluation efforts and presents the analysis findings developed as part of the prior study tasks to calculate a fair share fee amount and document the rational nexus for a regional logistics mitigation fee. 1.1 . NEXUS STUDY PROCESS The various steps of the fee calculation process that contribute to accomplishing this task are summarized in the following sections of this document. The study process starts by confirming the expected growth in population and employment in the region, and specifically growth in warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County, applies the regional travel demand model to generate traffic data outputs to identify future capacity deficiencies in the highway network, and then determines the proportion of those deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics related development. The resultant information is then cross-referenced with project cost information to determine the overall cost of mitigating logistics impacts as the basis for estimating a fee. This cost is then divided by the anticipated rate of growth in new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County to determine the fair share fee amount. The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of a fee that represents the maximum "fair share" amount that can be charged to new warehouse and logistics uses to mitigate the indirect cumulative regional impacts of the development on the freeway network. The overall process for establishing the fee nexus is illustrated in the flow chart in Figure 1.1 outlining the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the fee and establish the program nexus is described in the subsequent sections, with reference to the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the various steps. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of the SCAG regional travel demand model, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and key outputs. 2 226 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Figure 1-1: Flowchart of Key Steps in the Nexus Study Process KEY Reference fo Oescriptun in TeM Key Inputs . Competition Moen Files Mudd Ras Key Outputs Idcntilying Capacity Deficiencies SCAG 2412 Base hoer Rand Year Mew& 4nvovemenis 111) Capacty Deficiencies Attributable to New Development 1- 4 201E Ye SCIU'i 2ga aDS Musing & Empbymcnt 2Dr10 Model lhin Forecast Logistics Gros& o Sunray ei Edsling 1 Luystics 0 SCPC MO SCS °Truck %IP Fosew-151of i Inds Employment Trip•Gcn Logistics Jots Table Raps Growth by TA? Existing Capacity Capacities Futire Capacity Deficiencies Deficiencies *Selection Criteria Ir Possible Adjustment of Selection Criteria Pa Fedora Forecast Truck Trips for New Logistics Anributing Capacity Deficiencies to Nary Logistics Development ID LT TM • 0-0 YL Ti4 041 HT Tifp 0-0 Whir Wants by Linn [—Parkin-Fed R$GO al Employee /13F — LTT�e � INVLT �TnK4 Growth * � in� CAT Trips MT Tripe LugISMTSF A112040 200 HT Trips for HTTrips I Now Lugsiica "OTT % MR Ti % HTTWirs far Nfarar Each TAZ LT hi O-17 � RlT 0-0 HT Trip O-D Maher silo New logistics Voir 2044 Truck Yolu New Logis sN� to New Logistic! Stars crPrejed Hoed ArmLuhYe i. Now Logi Estimating Freeway Project Cost etiosign Standards 1111111lnit Croke for R0W In, No149 Type S Celstruatbn t r Computing the Fos Fee per TSF 3 227 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 2. FORECASTING LOGISTICS GROWTH AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS This initial phase of the study process is to inventory existing logistics facilities in Riverside County, confirm the forecast growth in logistics facilities through 2040, and determine the magnitude and location of logistics related truck traffic impacts. This effort encompasses the first nine steps illustrated in the study process flow chart. 2.1. FORECASTING LOGISTICS GROWTH The settlement agreement that prompted the study effort specifically cites warehouse and logistics uses as the subject of the analysis and potential fee. As a precursor to inventorying and forecasting logistics facilities and their impacts, specific types of logistics facilities were defined to be the subject of the analysis and resultant fee based on the functions they serve, the types of businesses that utilize them, and their design and trip generation characteristics. A range of data sources were reviewed including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) High -Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, the SCAG Industrial Warehousing Study, the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, and the recently -released SCAQMD/NAIOP/ITE study of vehicle trip generation for high -cube warehouses, as well as available industry databases to identify an appropriate definition of the subject uses. The various datasets use different systems to classify industries; the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). The U.S. Census Bureau uses the NAICS structure. Similarly, SCAG uses the NAICS structure as the basis for developing regional employment forecasts as part of its long-range planning responsibilities. The NAICS applies a 6-digit hierarchical coding system to classify all economic activity into 20 industry sectors. Five sectors are mainly goods -producing sectors and 15 are entirely services - producing sectors. Transportation and Warehousing (Industry Code 48 & 49) is defined in NAICS as "Industries providing transportation of passengers and cargo, warehousing and storage for goods, scenic and sightseeing transportation, and support activities related to modes of transportation. Establishments in these industries use transportation equipment or transportation related facilities as a productive asset. Modes of transportation include air, rail, water, road, and pipeline. (Example: Freight Trucking Companies, Warehousing and Storage, Couriers and Delivery Services.r. The Warehousing subcategory (NAICS subcategory code 493) is included within this category and was determined to be the most applicable subcategory for the purposes of this study. The current SCAG Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) was adopted on April 7, 2016 and constitutes the officially -adopted land use forecast for the region. The horizon year for the SCS is 2040. The primary SCS forecast for non-residential development incorporates units of jobs (as opposed to acres, square feet, etc.) for a full range of land uses, including Warehousing employment. As the adopted growth forecast for the SCAG region, the SCAG SCS provides the starting point for forecasting logistics growth in Riverside County. The SCAG SCS base year (2012) jobs in the Warehousing subcategory was compared to other sources as a reasonableness check. The California Employment Development Department 1 North American Industry Classification System United States, Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget, 2017 4 228 NNW RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study (EDD) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) employment data by detailed NAICS industries code were utilized for this purpose. The SCAG SCS base year (2012) employment in Warehousing in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties is 15,821 jobs, which is less than two-thirds of the 24,900 Warehousing jobs indicated for the same period in the EDD employment data for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA. For this reason, the SCAG SCS data were adjusted to support the travel demand forecasting completed as part of this study. EDD collects data on employment by detailed NAICS industries, but only at the MSA geographic level. Moreover, EDD does not include long-term forecasts, only past observed data. Therefore, the EDD historical data for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA had to be extrapolated into the future and disaggregated by county. The adjustments were accomplished by first observing the historical trend for Warehousing jobs in the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA and extrapolating for the years 2016 to 2040. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, 2003 marks a notable inflection point where the rate of growth in warehousing increases relative to the growth of transportation/warehousing employment overall. Therefore, the post-2003 trend was used to extrapolate from 2016 to 2040 for both for the Warehousing sub -category and the rest of Transportation sub -categories as the basis for adjusting the employment data in the model. Figure 2-1: EDD Warehouse and Other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends (Riverside - San Bernardino -Ontario MSA) 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 o O N d* l0 CO O N V l0 CO O N ',t l0 00 O N V Lo oo O Ncl- l0 00 O 01 01 01 01 01 O O O O O c-I .--1 c-1 c-I N N N N N M M M M Mc1- 01 01 01 01 010 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c-I c-I c-1 c-I c-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ■ Warehouse ■ Non -Warehouse Caltrans' Transportation Economics Branch provides annual county -level projections of employment by 2-digit NAICS industry categories through 2050. A comparison of the Caltrans data for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties combined reveals the total jobs for 5 229 NNW RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Transportation and Warehousing correlates very closely with the EDD historical trend extrapolation described previously, as illustrated in Figure 2-2. Considering the close correlation of totals between datasets, the proportion of total jobs in Transportation and Warehousing in Riverside County compared to San Bernardino County based on the Caltrans dataset was used to disaggregate the EDD extrapolated Warehouse jobs by MSA into county subtotals. Figure 2-2: Transportation Employment - Caltrans Transportation Economics Branch Forecast vs. Extrapolated EDD Trend (Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA) 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 O N � lD o0 O N � lD 00 O N .71- lD co O N d- lD oo O O O O O O .-i c-I .--i .--I .--i N N N N N M M CO M M � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N fV N N N N N N N N (V N Caltrans Economic Forecast Extrapolated EDD Trend The preceding steps produced a control total for the growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County accomplishing Step 1 in the study process as illustrated in Figure 1-1. However, accomplishing this first step provided no indication about where in the county these jobs would be located. Locational data is needed so that the anticipated growth in warehouse and logistics development will be properly represented in the travel demand forecast in terms of where resultant traffic impacts will affect the freeway system. The best available data for distributing warehousing growth across Riverside County can be derived from the SCAG Industrial Warehousing Study, some products of which are available for Heavy Duty Truck modeling purposes. For the purposes of the Industrial Warehousing Study, SCAG developed forecasts of the rate of warehouse growth in terms of the gross floor area of buildings as well as jobs. Table 2-1 summarizes the forecasts developed as part of the SCAG study effort and incorporated into the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model that supported the 2016 RTP/SCS. 6 230 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Table 2-1: Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 Year High Cube Warehousing Warehouse Area (square feet) Employment Low Cube Warehousing Warehouse Area (square feet) Employment 2012* 41,281,541 1,793 8,833,418 1,804 2016 48,837,363 2,810 14,472,627 2,533 2020 56,393,177 3,819 20,111,826 3,256 2030 64,664,947 6,120 .111 26,810,782 5,070 2040 69,410,192 7,427 31,231,977 6,185 * The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space. The area shown in 2016 and years after includes planned occupied floor space. Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Heavy Duty Truck Model Although the SCAG warehouse employment forecast appeared to be low when compared to other data sources, as described previously, the warehouse area forecast appears to be more consistent with the amount of existing and planned warehouse development in Riverside County. Furthermore, as a check of the reasonableness of the EDD extrapolation of Warehouse sector employment in Riverside County, the jobs were multiplied by the square foot per employee ratio for warehousing uses as published by the National Association for Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space in March 2010. As indicated in Table 2-2, when the extrapolated EDD warehouse employment trend forecast is multiplied by the 2,241 square feet per employee ratio cited by NAIOP, the resultant interpolated growth in warehouse building area is similar, although slightly lower, than the rate forecast by SCAG in the Industrial Warehousing Study and utilized in the Heavy Duty Truck Model. For this reason, the rate of growth in the gross floor area of warehouses in Riverside County was accepted by the Study Review Team as the basis for calculating the fee accomplishing Step 4 in the study process, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. This finding also affirmed using the data to guide the disaggregation of EDD extrapolated warehouse jobs in Riverside County for travel demand modeling purposes. Table 2-2: Warehouse Growth in Riverside County, 2016-2040 Growth (2016 to 2040) Employees Square Feet of Gross Floor Area SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Forecast 8,269 37,332,179 Extrapolated EDD Forecast* 14,582 32,678,262 * Forecast based on EDD extrapolated employment trend and 2,241 square feet per employee ratio from NAIOP Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space, March 2010 Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Forecast & Heavy Duty Truck Model; EDD 7 231 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Table 2-3 arrays the forecast growth in the gross floor area of warehousing in Riverside County based on the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS forecast presented in the Industrial Warehouse Study and utilized in the Heavy Duty Truck Model. The extrapolated growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County was multiplied by the percentage of warehouse job growth for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) as derived from the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model to produce the adjusted forecast of the growth in warehouse employment by TAZ to support the travel demand forecasting conducted as part of this study, accomplishing Step 3 in the study process, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. Table 2-3: Warehouse Growth by TAZs in Riverside County (in thousand square feet gross floor area and percentage) TAZ_ ID High -cube 2016 Low -cube 2016 High -cube 2040 Low -cube 2040 Total Change 2016-2040 Percent change 2016 - 2040 Percent of total growth countywide 43344 5,417 2,323 20,136 8,628 21,024 271.63% 56.31% 43336 641 1,497 3,198 7,461 8,521 398.55% 22.82% 43338 101 231 355 822 845 254.52% 2.26% 43148 4,437 410 4,437 1,029 619 12.77% 1.66% 43571 - - 594 - 594 0.00% 1.59% 43130 2,050 465 2,050 988 522 20.80% 1.40% 43364 - 182 331 293 442 242.86% 1.18% 43573 - - 421 - 421 0.00% 1.13% 43302 655 - 1,072 - 417 63.66% 1.12% 43305 302 - 604 - 302 100.00% 0.81% 43264 - - 300 - 300 0.00% 0.80% 43187 - 119 - 340 221 185.71% 0.59% 43575 156 37 311 75 193 100.00% 0.52% 43260 2,031 820 2,031 1,002 180 6.38% 0.48% 43452 172 - 343 172 99.42% 0.46% 43345 - - 163 163 0.00% 0.44% 43448 - 60 - 209 150 248.33% 0.40% 43286 - - 149 149 0.00% 0.40% 43332 101 44 202 88 145 100.00% 0.39% 43249 3,197 1,716 3,197 1,860 144 2.93% 0.39% 43395 131 - 262 - 131 100.00% 0.35% 43415 2,992 244 2,992 369 124 3.86% 0.33% 43134 474 454 474 574 120 12.93% 0.32% 43454 119 - 237 - 119 99.16% 0.32% 43168 491 - 491 116 116 23.63% 0.31% 8 232 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 43409 108 108 0.00% 0.29% 43366 - - - 89 89 0.00% 0.24% 43236 83 165 83 98.80% 0.22% 43399 - 81 - 162 81 100.00% 0.22% 43265 80 80 0.00% 0.21% 43488 - 78 - 155 78 98.72% 0.21% 43563 308 162 308 232 70 14.89% 0.19% 43246 328 487 328 547 61 7.36% 0.16% 43276 59 117 59 98.31% 0.16% 43429 - 57 - 115 57 101.75% 0.15% 43162 56 56 0.00% 0.15% 43181 821 61 821 112 51 5.78% 0.14% 43420 286 48 286 96 48 14.37% 0.13% 43261 - 120 - 163 43 35.83% 0.12% 43136 289 193 289 233 40 8.30% 0.11% 43310 - 40 - 80 40 100.00% 0.11% 43125 5,048 692 5,048 727 36 0.61% 0.10% 43474 - 32 - 65 32 103.13% 0.09% 43397 31 62 31 100.00% 0.08% 43188 380 145 380 175 30 5.71% 0.08% 43214 285 311 27 9.12% 0.07% TOTAL 30,927 11,256 51,498 28,016 37,334 88.50% 100.00% Source: SCAG Industrial Warehouse Study/Heavy Duty Truck Model 2.2. FORECASTING TRAFFIC IMPACTS A key step in the process of determining the basis for any impact fee program is identifying the extent of the impact that will result from new development activity. For the purposes of this study, the SCAG regional travel demand model was the primary tool used for identifying existing and future travel demands and capacity deficiencies, and determining attribution of deficiencies to new logistics trucking'. While the SCAG regional model provides the primary tool for quantifying the traffic impacts of new warehousing and logistics development, additional information regarding the trip generation characteristics of warehousing and logistics land uses is used to validate and refine the SCAG model results for the purposes of the study evaluation. The process for quantifying the trips associated with new logistics centers is summarized in the following section. 2 The following model analysis was performed by WSP based upon modeling information originally developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is not responsible for how the model is applied or for any changes to the model scripts, model parameters, or model input data. The resulting modeling data does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG. SCAG shall not be held responsible for the modeling results and the content of the documentation. 9 233 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 2.2.1. SCAG Model Adjustment and Re -Validation The California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines states the following about adjusting and re -validating a regional travel model prior to using it for sub -regional studies: 'Agencies that use MPO models for purposes other than regional planning should ensure that the model provides the appropriate scale and sensitivity for applications at a sub -regional level such as corridor, sub -area, or local planning studies. Below the regional level, model refinements are likely necessary to ensure the model meets the validation targets established in these guidelines and is appropriately sensitive to smaller scale changes associated with sub -regional studies." In accordance with the CTC guidelines and best industry practice, the SCAG model was reviewed, adjusted and revalidated to improve the accuracy of the results with respect to freeways in Riverside County. This process involved a series of diagnostic tests being performed on the SCAG model to test its validity for use in a freeway impact fee nexus study. The tests showed that the model reasonably represented truck traffic on Riverside County freeways. For example, Figure 2-3 compares the volume of trucks at various freeway locations in the model versus the volumes provided in the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data. The results reflect a reasonable correlation between the model and actual values, and no systemic tendency towards over- or under -estimating the truck volumes and percentage of total traffic. Figure 2-3: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways 30,000 25,000 20,000 5, 15,000 10,000 5,000 Overestimated Mkt • • Underestimated 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Traffic Counts •I-15 •SR 60 •I-215 •SR-91 •I-10 10 234 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study However, the tests also revealed that there was an issue warranting adjustment. Figure 2-4 shows link flows from a SCAG model run for 2016 compared to PeMS data for the same year. This data was evaluated two ways, namely: • The shaded areas in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show the allowable deviation based on Caltrans guidelines. The allowable deviation reflects the fact that the actual traffic volumes on roads fluctuate from day to day, so the "normal" traffic volume that a model should replicate is a range rather than a fixed value. A model is considered generally valid if 75% of the points fall within the allowable deviation. In this case 77% of the sites are within the allowable range in the AM peak hour and 86% in the PM peak hour, so the model passes this test of validity. • The second test was to see whether there was a general tendency for the model to over- estimate or under -estimate total traffic volumes on freeways in Riverside County. Figure 2-4 shows that the model did not satisfy this test; consistently over -estimating traffic on Riverside County freeways by an average of 26% in the AM peak hour and 20% in the PM peak hour. Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Total Traffic Volumes 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 E ^ 8000 j 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Overestimated AM Peak Hour • • Underestimated 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12060 13000 PeMS • 1-15 •S0. 60 • 1-215 •Se91 • 1-10 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 E 8000 j 2000 I 6000 g 5000 4000 3000 2000 PM Peak Hour Overestimated • • • ♦• • • • • • Underestimated 1000 • 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2000 8000 9000 16000 11000 12000 13000 PeMS •I -as •50.-60 •1-215 •Sri-91 •1-10 The model overestimation was corrected by factoring down model volumes in a post -model adjustment'. Only car volumes were factored down, not truck volumes, because truck volumes did not show the same trend of overestimation, as illustrated previously in Figure 2-3. Figure 2-5 shows the results after applying factors of 0.74 and 0.80 in the AM peak hour and PM peak a Additional details regarding the model testing, adjustments and re -validation are presented in Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions (WSP, October 2017) and Technical Memorandum: Task - Funding and Cost Analysis (WSP, June 2018). 11 235 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study hour, respectively. After adjustments, the R-squared4 value increased from 0.11 to 0.79 in the AM peak hour and from 0.51 to 0.84 in the PM peak hour, satisfying the recommended guidelines for model validity. Figure 2-5: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Adjusted Total Traffic Volumes SCAG Model Volumes AM Peak Hour Adjusted 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 800 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 PeM5 •I-15 •5R-60 •I-215 •SR-91 •I-10 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 w 8000 E j 7000 '&° 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Overestimated PM Peak Hour Adjusted 2.2.2. Forecasting Traffic Volumes and Identifying Traffic Impacts The SCAG Model's 2016 scenario year network was used for all model runs with the extrapolated 2016 and 2040 socio-economic forecasts described previously in Section 2.1 providing the basis for the demand inputs in Riverside County. These model files were from the version of the SCAG model used to develop the 2016 RTP/SCS. The SCAG model outputs were factored in accordance with the post -model adjustment described in Section 2.2.1 to yield adjusted forecast total traffic volumes on the various freeways in Riverside County for analysis years 2016 and 2040. This process to forecast 2016 and 2040 traffic volumes effectively encompasses steps 10, 12 and 14 as illustrated previously in Figure 1-1. Based on the post -model adjusted total traffic volumes, the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio was computed for each freeway link in Riverside County for the AM and PM peak hours using the capacities and passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors' embedded in the SCAG model (steps 13 and 15 in Figure 1-1). Per the RCTC Congestion Management Program, the adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) threshold for freeways in Riverside County is LOS "E" meaning that freeway facilities with a V/C ratio of 1.0 or higher are considered deficient. 4 R-squared is a measure of how well the forecast accounts for variations in the traffic counts. R-squared values can range from 0.00, indicating no relationship between the model values and the counts, to 1.00, indicating that the model accounts for all variation in the count data set. 5 PCE factors are used to account for the difference in size, speed, and maneuverability between different classes of vehicles, including the effect of slopes on the operating characteristics of trucks. 12 236 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Figures 2-6 and 2-8 show the existing V/C ratios on Riverside County freeways for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively, with green and yellow indicating acceptable V/C ratios (<0.9), orange indicating marginal V/C ratios (0.9 -1.0) and red indicating deficient V/C ratios (>1.0). Under existing conditions, three current deficiencies were identified on the freeway network in Riverside County: SR-91 in Corona during the both the AM and PM peak hours, I-15 in the Jurupa Valley during the PM peak hour, and I-215 between Riverside and Moreno Valley during the PM peak hour. These congested sections may result in queuing in upstream sections whose V/C ratios would not in themselves be problematic, but may be perceived by drivers as problem sections beyond the actual deficient segment. Figures 2-7 and 2-9 show 2040 traffic demand assigned to the existing network6 with no added capacity improvements for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (i.e. a 2040 "No Improvement" Scenario). Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies helps to show where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to new development. Furthermore, comparing the existing and future V/C ratio on the freeway segments that are currently deficient shows the proportion of the future deficiency that is attributable to new development. The 2040 No Improvmenet results clearly indicate the existing deficiencies worsen and two additional deficiencies in the AM peak hour and five additional deficiencies in the PM peak hour would manifest. It should be noted that although the following exhibits illustrate the model results for the Western Riverside County, modeling and V/C ratios were done for all freeways in Riverside County. However, the results did not indicate any deficient segments of freeway outside of Western Riverside County, although some modest deterioration of V/C can be observed along I-10 in the Coachella Valley during the 2040 PM peak hour, as illustrated in Figure 2-9. It should also be noted that the model results reflect V/C ratio as the basis for identifying freeway capacity deficiencies. Beyond the embedded capacity of each freeway segment in the SCAG model network, the analysis did not consider operational deficiencies in the freeway network that may contribute to traffic breakdown and congestion (e.g. lane drops, weaving and merging areas, horizontal and vertical alignment, and other design characteristics). These types of operational deficiencies can be considered existing design deficiencies and therefore usually cannot be attributed to the impacts of future new development, although future new development can exacerbate the magnitude of congestion associated with these operational deficiencies. For this reason, V/C is used to identify freeway segments with a capacity deficiency that can be attributable to the additional traffic from new development, while also factoring the extent that existing traffic demand contribute to the deficiency. Operational deficiencies are considered during the development of concepts to mitigate the capacity deficiencies to the extent that addressing the operational deficiencies represents necessary improvement elements to accomplish successful mitigation of the capacity deficiency. 6 The SCAG existing model network represents the current state of the transportation system in 2016 and does not reflect those projects completed since 2016. In Riverside County, the SR-91 Express Lanes Extension project that included various freeway improvements along SR-91 from the Orange County line to I-15 was completed after 2016. Projects completed after 2016 (as well as projects currently under construction) get reconciled during subsequent study steps, as described in Chapter 4 of this technical memorandum. 13 237 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Figure 2-6: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour Figure 2-7: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour fH■IlNllrl�■1�► ■■ �arai =1 +r H■11■1.1■N■■■■�i ■1■ 1 1■■11■1■ ■ 1�■■Il�lu�■��N 4°_ am .� vIIIIMEWILIE ■■■■■ ■ MNNFIMP E 1110 VC 14 238 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Figure 2-8: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour ImrIEENEN■:�� .■ waraimminarEno ►A& A i 15 rsi een alley "'en" ■11 ` 1,� MEM ��ii�n=1+ Figure 2-9: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour 15 239 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Based on the findings of the V/C analysis, freeway segments identified as being deficient in the 2040 No Improvement Scenario were tabulated. These locations represent the freeway segments where future traffic demands exceed the existing capacity, and therefore require mitigation. These locations are listed in Table 2-4 and illustrated in Figure 2-10. Section 3 of this report describes the process that was used to determine the share of the deficiency in each of these segments that is specifically attributable to the impacts of new warehousing and logistics developments occurring in Riverside County. Table 2.4: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) ID Route Dir Beginning End 1 a,b I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 5 Norco Dr/6th St Limonite Ave 6 a,b SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th 7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd 9 a,b SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 10 a,b I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd 14 a,b,c SR-91 EB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off -Ramp Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp 15 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off -Ramp 16 On -Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 17 McKinley St Off Ramp Pierce St 18 Pierce St Magnolia St 19 a,b WB Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line 16 240 " s I RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Figure 2-10: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) +11111. �iiiiii■ir■■�� fit,',11' Likoly.fla iv rt minors�� 17 241 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 2.3. ATTRIBUTING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES TO NEW LOGISTICS DEVELOPMENT In addition to generating the traffic volume forecasts used as the basis to determine V/C and identify the capacity deficiencies described previously, the SCAG model runs produce several outputs that can be used in the attribution of share to logistics uses. The following section summarizes the process for determining attribution to new logistics development using various outputs from the SCAG model runs. 2.3.1. Percent Attributable to Future Development Impact fees must be limited to only account for a new development's "fair share" of the cost of needed improvements to mitigate associated impacts. In particular, impacts fees cannot be assessed to directly cover the cost to mitigate existing deficiencies. Therefore, the first step in attributing impacts is to complete a comparison of existing and future freeway deficiencies to determine how much of each future deficiency can be attributed to traffic from future development. There are three possible situations for each freeway link: • Freeway volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, even when the traffic from new development is added in. In such cases there is no deficiency. No fee can be collected because no improvement is needed. • Existing traffic volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, but the addition of traffic from new growth creates a deficiency where none previously existed. In such cases No/ of the deficiency can be attributed to new development. • There is an existing deficiency that will worsen with the addition of traffic from new growth. In these cases, the percent of the deficiency attributable to new growth is the portion of the excess traffic (excess being the traffic above the capacity of the road) that arises from new growth rather than from existing traffic. The existing and future traffic for each of the deficient segments idenfied in Table 2-4 was compared to detemine which of the three possible situations applied. The percent attributable to new development was determined based on this comparison, and the results were tabulated as the share of impact attributable to all new development. 2.3.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Trucks in Riverside County In order to compute the percent of each deficiency that is attributable specifically to warehousing and logistics truck trips, it was necessary to separate the truck trips generated by warehousing and logistics uses from the total traffic forecast during the model assignment process. This process is represented by steps 5 through 9 and 19 through 23 as illustrated in the flowchart in Figure 1-1. This process was accomplished by first modifying the Truck Employment table in the SED input files to the SCAG model to reflect only the growth in warehousing and logistics employment in Riverside County. A select -zone query was then generated during the model 18 242 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study assignment step allowing logistics only truck trips generated by warehouse and logistics uses in Riverside County to be recorded for each link in the model. This specifically isolates the truck trips associated with warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County from the trips associated with all other land use in the county, as well as the truck trips that are generated outside the county but still traverse freeways within Riverside County (i.e. pass -through trips). A comparison of the Riverside County logistics related truck trips in 2040 to the total traffic forecast in 2040 provides the share of Riverside County logistics related truck trips in 2040 for each deficient segment on Riverside County freeways. 2.3.3. Percent of Freeway Capacity Deficiencies Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County As described in Section 2.2.2, the freeway segments in Riverside County with new or increased deficiencies in either peak hour in 2040 relative to the existing condition in 2016 were identified as deficient segments. For each deficient segment, the share of logistics related truck trips, as described in Section 2.3.2, was multiplied by the share of deficiencies attributable to all future growth, as described in Section 2.3.1, to determine the percent of each deficiency specifically attributable to new logistics related truck trips. Consistent with the identification of deficiencies based on AM and PM peak hour observations, all these steps were done for both AM and PM peak hour traffic, then the peak hour with the higher percent attributable was selected to represent the link. Continuous sequences of model segments, as listed in Table 2-4, were grouped for the purposes of assigning the percent of freeway capacity deficiencies attributable to new logistics development in Riverside County. Where multiple deficient segments were grouped, a weighted percent attributable was calculated based on the respective segment percent attributable and the length of each segment. Table 2-5 arrays the critical V/C ratios, deficiencies, and percent attributable for each deficient segment of freeway in Riverside County. Figure 2-11 visually represents the components of traffic (existing, non -logistics growth, and logistics growth) relative to the capacity for each deficient segment location. 19 243 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Table 2-5: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County Project ID Route Name Di r Critical Segment 2016 GP Lanes on Critical Segment Segment Length (mi) Critical V/C ratio Percent Deficiency Attributable to New Development New Logistics Trucks as Percent of 2016 to 2040 Growth Percent Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics Trucks by Peak Hour Percent Deficiency Attributable to New Logistic Trucks Weighted Average Highest %Deficiency Attributable to New Logistic Trucks Start End 2016 AM 2016 PM V/C V/C 2040 AM 2040PM V/C V/C AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour (A) (B) (C) =100%, for (A) < 1.0 and (B) > 1.0 (C)=[(B)-(A)]/[(B)-1], for(A)>1.0 (D) (E)=(C)'(D) (F)= Max (E) 1 -15 NB SR-79S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 4 4 0.98 1.10 0.35 0.45 0.66 0.74 0.52 0.60 1.01 1.01 No Deficiency No Deficiency 100% 100% 1.2% 1.4% 0.7% 0.7% No Deficiency No Deficiency 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 07% 2 1-15 NB Winchester Rd Lane Add south of 1-15/1-215 Split 4 0.75 0.46 0.79 0.58 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 2.3% 0.9% No Deficiency 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 3 1-15 NB Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 3 0.76 0.52 0.80 0.65 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 1.1% 0.3% No Deficiency 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 4 1-15 NB El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 3 0.19 0.86 0.90 1.03 0.88 100% No Deficiency 1.1% 100.0% 1.1% No Deficiency 1.1% 1.1% 5 1-15 NB Norco Dr/6th Street Limonite Ave 3 2.03 0.82 1.10 0.87 1.14 No Deficiency 29% 4.1% 2.5% No Deficiency 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 6-15 SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th Street 3 3 1.30 2.00 0.77 0.87 0.96 1.01 0.77 0.90 1.02 1.04 No Deficiency No Deficiency 100% 88% 100.0% 4.7% 4.3% 5.9% No Deficiency No Deficiency 4.3% 5.2% 4.3% 5.2% 4.8% 7 1-15 SB El Cerrito Rd Dos Lagos Dr 3 2.14 0.65 0.92 0.61 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 2.2% No Deficiency 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 8 1-15 SB Temescal Canyon Rd Indian Truck Trail 3 2.21 0.61 0.83 0.56 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 1.4% No Deficiency 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 3 3 0.79 0.10 0.84 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.81 0.82 1.03 1.06 No Deficiency No Deficiency 100% 100% 100.0% 100.0% 30.9% 39.0% No Deficiency No Deficiency 30.9% 39.0% 30.9% 39.0% 31.8% 10-215 NB Box Springs Rd Watkins Dr Central Ave Martin Luther King Jr 4 4 0.41 0.78 0.94 0.94 1.08 1.05 1.09 1.12 1.07 1.16 100% 100% 0% 66% 14.3% 24.8% 100.0% 57.9% 14.3% 24.8% 0.0% 38.4% 14.3% 38.4% 30.0% 10c 1-215 NB University Ave Off -Ramp Upstream of Univ Ave On -ramp 3 0.36 0.90 1.04 0.98 1.04 No Deficiency 13% 26.9% 100.0% No Deficiency 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 11 1-215 NB Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Li ne/Iowa Ave 3 0.53 0.79 1.00 0.79 1.03 No Deficiency 97% 91.5% 12.2% No Deficiency 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 12 1-215 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 4 1.58 0.96 1.13 1.07 1.25 100% 50% 57.1% 55.2% 57.1% 27.7% 57.1% 57.1% 13 1-215 SB Van Buren Blvd Harley Knox Blvd 3 1.22 0.67 0.95 0.64 1.06 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 4.4% No Deficiency 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 14 SR-91 NB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp 5 5 4 0.76 1.33 1.35 0.89 0.79 0.92 1.18 1.01 1.17 0.76 0.72 0.85 1.23 1.02 1.27 No Deficiency No Deficiency No Deficiency 23% 69% 36% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6.1% 14.1% 4.1% No Deficiency No Deficiency No Deficiency 1.4% 9.8% 1.5% 1.4% 9.8% 1.5% 4.7% 15 SR-91 NB Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Grand Blvd Off -Ramp 4 2.33 0.85 1.00 0.80 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.9% No Deficiency 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 16 SR-91 NB On -Ramp from SBl-15 On -Ramp from NBl-15 3 0.32 0.81 1.03 0.76 1.07 No Deficiency 55% 100.0% 13.6% No Deficiency 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 17 SR-91 NB McKinley St Off -Ramp Pierce St 3 1.60 0.81 0.98 0.76 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 10.1% No Deficiency 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 18 SR-91 NB Magnolia Ave La Sierra Ave 3 0.30 0.76 0.93 0.69 1.00 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.3% No Deficiency 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 19 SR-91 SB Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line 4 5 2.26 1.75 0.97 0.92 1.08 1.00 1.05 1.02 1.01 0.91 100% 100% 0% No Deficiency 2.8% 1.8% 100.0% 100.0% 2.8% 1.8% 0.0% No Deficiency 2.8% 1.8% 2.3% 244 20 245 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Figure 2-11: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity 60 % la lb 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7 8 9a 9b 10a 10b 10c 11 12 13 14a 14b 14c 15 16 17 18 19a 19b 70% 80 % 90 % 100% 110% Capacity ■ Existing Traffic ■ Non -Logistics Growth ■ New Logistics Trucks 120% 130% 21 246 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 3. DETERMINING FREEWAY MITIGATION CONCEPTS AND COSTS Having identified deficient freeway segments in Section 2.2, and determined the share of the deficiency in each segment that is attributable to new warehouse and logistics uses in Riverside County in Section 2.3, the next step in the study process involved the preparation of design concepts for the mitigation of freeway traffic impacts, and the estimation of the costs associated to implement the necessary mitigation. This section describes the process for developing mitigation concepts and determining associated costs. The resultant mitigation costs will be compared to the percent attributable to each deficient segment, as defined in Table 2-5, to determine the fair share of the cost to mitigate each deficient segment to is attributable to the impacts of new warehouse and logistics development in Riverside County. 3.1. ASSESSING PROJECT LIMITS Future capacity deficiencies on the freeway network in Riverside County were summarized in Table 2-4 as a list of directional freeway segments where the future demand exceeded capacity and resulted in a bottleneck in the system. Limiting capacity expansion to the specific identified segment would be expected to mitigate the bottleneck in that segment, however it is likely that the bottleneck would be moved to the next adjacent segment without alleviating the capacity deficiency. Therefore, the list of deficient segments was reviewed in relation to the traffic data and the physical characteristics of the existing freeway facility to determine the extent of the improvement projects that would be necessary (i.e. to define the practical limits and logical termini for the associated improvement project) to effectively mitigate the segment deficiency. At each freeway segment identified as having a capacity deficiency, the traffic data was reviewed to determine the location (typically an off -ramp) where the demand along the corridor was reduced enough to no longer exceed the capacity of the freeway mainline. Other considerations were physical characteristics of the freeway that might also contribute to capacity reduction, such as uphill grades where additional capacity to accommodate slower moving trucks would benefit the operation of the freeway, and system interchanges where demand changed substantially and there were opportunities for lane drops at freeway -to - freeway connectors. The practical limits of each of the 19 projects required to mitigate the deficient segments are listed in Table 3-1. The definition of this project list correlates to accomplishing step 18 in Figure 1-1. 22 247 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Table 3-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects ID Route Name Dir Beginning End 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 5 Norco Dr/6th St Limonite Ave 6 SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th 7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd 14 SR-91 EB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off -Ramp Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp 15 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off -Ramp 16 On -Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 17 McKinley St Off Ramp Pierce St 18 Pierce St Magnolia St 19 WB Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line 3.2. REVIEW OF CURRENTLY FUNDED/PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS Once the practical limits of the improvements were defined, each project was compared to known, programmed projects that were recently completed (and are not included in the SCAG 2016 Model existing network), are currently under construction, or are currently in 23 248 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study development and are funded for construction. There are three projects that are within the study area that were identified as meeting these criteria: • The I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange Project, Phases 1 and 2 • The I-15 Express Lane Project • The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project The French Valley Parkway Project includes the implementation of the I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange as well as improvements to the Winchester Road Interchange and a collector -distributor road system along I-15 between Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 system interchange. This project adds as many as three lanes in each direction north of Winchester Road. Based on the Preferred Alternative Layout Plans included in the IS/EA (January 2010), the FVP Phasing Exhibit (December 2, 2015) and the Ultimate Project Exhibit (July 12, 2017), it was determined that the French Valley Parkway Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segment 2. The I-15 Express Lane Project will implement one or two tolled managed lanes in each direction northbound and southbound between Cajalco Road and SR-60. This project also adds general purpose lanes and auxiliary lanes at specific locations. Based on a review of the I-15 Express Lane Project Tolling Concept Plans (June 21, 2017), the I-15 Express Lane Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 4, 5, and 6. The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project extends from west of the Orange County Line to east of I-15 both eastbound and westbound. In addition to the tolled express lanes, additional general purpose lanes were also constructed as part of this project. Based on a field review of the project as it has been constructed, the SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 14,15,17, and 19. Table 3-2 lists the remaining deficient segments and associated mitigation projects that would be included as the basis for the logistics fee program. 24 249 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Table 3-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program ID Route Name Dir Beginning End 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd 16 SR-91 EB On -Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 18 Pierce St Magnolia St 3.3. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT CONCEPTS Using scalable, georeferenced aerial photography, project concept plans were developed consistent with Caltrans design standards for urban area freeways to show the primary quantifiable cost items for each project, including: • Right -of -Way Impact • Retaining Walls • Freeway Mainline Widening • Structure Construction • Ramp Realignment • Roadway Excavation • Street Improvements • Signalization For the initial assessment and development of project concept plans, a combination of Google Earth and limited field reviews were used to determine existing conditions for the corridors. The conditions recorded include number of lanes, width of pavement, HOV lanes, inside (left) shoulder width, outside (right) shoulder width, assumed right-of-way boundary, freeway 25 250 NNW RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study structures, ramp locations, major drainage facilities, retaining walls, sounds walls, signage, and signals. All widths and lengths provided were obtained by doing desktop research on Google Earth and limited field reviews, and were based on sound engineering judgement. Although arterial highway improvement projects were not specifically examined as part of the study effort, any arterial highway improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed freeway capacity improvements (e.g. ramp realignment, bridge reconstruction, intersection signalization) were identified and included in the concept drawings. The concept plans show colored lines and areas that can be measured and used to estimate quantities for the various categories of construction or property acquisition. These project concept drawings were reviewed by the Study Advisory Team to confirm that they reasonably represent the minimum improvements necessary to mitigate the identified deficiency. The resultant improvement concept plans are included in Appendix A of this technical memorandum. The completion of the design concept drawings represents the accomplishment of step 24 in the study process flow chart Figure 1-1. It should be noted that the conceptual designs were based on a visual analysis and that no detailed engineering or surveying has been done to verify the assumptions. 3.4. PROJECT COST ESTIMATING To accomplish step 25 and 26 in the study process, the unit costs for the various construction components were taken from the Caltrans cost database and other recent project cost estimates for projects of similar scale and scope within the Inland Empire. Right-of-way cost per residential unit and per square foot are based on recent property valuations in Riverside County. Specific elements in the unit costs include: Roadway Item Costs - Roadway costs include PCC pavement, tie -back walls, pavement markings and markers and replacement of signs. Unit costs were extrapolated from a similar freeway construction project. - The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the roadway component. Drainage Item Costs - Per our initial assessment, widening affects the existing drainage. Further analysis is needed as impacts to drainage can increase the costs. - The costs associated with the potential impacts to drainage are 15% of the roadway items cost. Specialty Item Costs - Specialty item costs include retaining walls due to proposed widening, removal of existing retaining walls, sounds wall replacement, tie back walls and ramp adjustments. 26 251 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study - The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the specialty item costs. Minor Items Costs - Minor items can include anything from ADA items to other minor items that are not considered high costs items. Typical Caltrans value is 5-10%. Mobilization Costs - Mobilization includes costs incurred due to mobilization of personnel and equipment as well as pre -construction expenses. Typical value of 10% can be adjusted when actual costs are available. Roadway Additions - Roadway addition items can include price index fluctuations, value analysis, maintaining traffic, removal of rock and debris, etc. These supplemental items cover work for items that cannot be quantified as contract bid item. All roadway supplemental items would be within the FHWA approved items list. At this stage it is appropriate to assume there will be supplemental items. Typical Caltrans value is 5- 10%. Contingency - Contingency of 25 % is within Caltrans recommended values: Pre-PSR 30%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10% and final PS&E is 5%. Caltrans contingencies allow for unforeseen increases. Due to the level of detail and engineering available, the contingency percentage is appropriate. As more information becomes available, costs would be refined and contingency would be decreased. This is typical per Caltrans. Support Costs - Support costs are 35 % of the capital outlay costs. Support costs include design costs, construction management, Caltrans reimbursed costs and Metro internal costs. These costs are functional overhead costs not administrative overhead. The support costs can be refined as more information becomes available. The unit costs were multiplied by the quantities determined from the conceptual design plans to yield a conceptual cost estimate for each proposed project. The proposed improvement project conceptual cost estimates were compared to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2016 Nexus Study Report, with a focus on identifying arterial -freeway interchange and bridge projects that are also included in TUMF. The TUMF program assesses all development types, including warehouse and logistics uses, impact fees to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on the arterial highway system, including arterial -freeway 27 252 NNW RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study interchanges and bridges. As such, new warehouse and logistics uses are already contributing toward the cost of these improvement projects to the extent they are included in the TUMF program. Where the conceptual improvement projects were determined to include project elements that were also identified in the TUMF program, the conceptual cost estimate for the project was reduced by an amount equal to the lesser of the estimated conceptual cost of the relevant project element (i.e. the conceptual cost of the arterial interchange and/or bridge improvements) or the maximum eligible amount prescribed in the 2016 TUMF Nexus Study. This reduction in the conceptual improvement costs as part of this study eliminates overlap with the TUMF program in terms of the cost for implementing arterial interchange and bridge improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed freeway capacity expansion necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development, including warehousing and logistics uses, on the freeway network. The resultant conceptual project cost estimates are summarized in Table 3-3Error! Reference source not found.. A more detailed breakout of the conceptual project cost estimates to mitigate the deficient segments is included in Appendix B of this technical memorandum. Table 3-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates ID Route Name Dir Beginning End Cost Estimate 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000 7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 Market St Main St 10 I 215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,000 Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 16 SR-91 EB On -Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 $7,611,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 Total Project Cost Estimate $385,335,000 28 253 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 3.4.1. Project Costs Attributable to New Logistics Development The conceptual cost estimate of $385,335,000 presented in Table 3-3 represents the unfunded amount of the total cost to implement the minimum improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development on Riverside County Freeways. However, as described in Section 2.3, this cost cannot be entirely attributed to the impact of new logistics developments and must be adjusted as the basis for calculating a fair share fee to reflect only the share of the cost for each segment that can be attributed to the impact of new logistics developments. This key step in the study process, represented by step 28 in the study process flowchart in Figure 1-1, is accomplished by multiplying the unfunded project costs summarized in Table 3-3 by the share of each segments impact attributable to new logistics development summarized in Table 2-5. Table 3-4 presents the outcome of this step with a total of $47,841,000 or 12.4% of the conceptual cost estimate being determined to be the maximum share of the cost attributable to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County. Table 3-4: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Logistics Cost Share ID Route Name Dm Beginning End Conceptual Cost Estimate Logistics Attributable Share Logistics Cost Share 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 0.7% $258,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000 0.3% $19,000 7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000 2.2% $820,000 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 1.4% $142,000 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 31.8% $12,802,000 Market St Main St 10 I 215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,000 30.0% $7,963,000 Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 13.3% $7,317,000 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 11.8% $4,978,000 12 SB Martin Luther King Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 57.1% $7,658,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 4.4% $4,235,000 16 SR-91 EB On -Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 $7,611,000 7.5% $571,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 8.3% $1,078,000 Total Project Cost Estimate $385,335,000 12.4% $47,841,000 29 254 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 4. FUNDING GAP ANALYSIS As described in Section 3, the fair share of costs to mitigate future freeway deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics uses varies by segment, but is a relatively small proportion of the total cost to complete the necessary improvements. Furthermore, although the project concepts and associated cost estimates have identified a minimum level of improvement necessary to reasonably mitigate the identified impact, it is likely the scale and scope of any proposed improvement project would be greater to account for the accomplishment of other transportation goals and/or freeway operational needs, including rehabilitation and roadway maintenance, resolution of existing needs, or anticipation of addition future demands beyond the horizon year of the fee program. Since the resolution of these items cannot be fairly attributed to the mitigation of new development impacts, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient alternative funding sources are expected to be available to complete the necessary improvements and establish an implementable program. This section summarizes projections of alternative transportation funding sources that might be available to complete freeway capacity expansion projects identified as part of this study. 4.1 . RIVERSIDE COUNTY STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT In 2015, the RCTC directed its staff to conduct an assessment to assist the Commission in examining the County's need for transportation investments. In early 2016, the RCTC approved the Riverside County Strategic Assessment'. The Strategic Assessment includes a detailed review of federal, state and local revenues through 2040.8 9 It looked at 37 different funding sources covering all modes and categorized them into three levels (A, B and C), depending on their level of certainty. Category A represents existing revenues that can be reasonably expected to be available in the future, Category B includes existing and programmed revenues that Riverside County might realistically secure on a discretionary or competitive basis and those in Category C are considered strategy revenues. According to the Strategic Assessment, the total costs of freeway and interchange projects between 2016 and 2039 were expected to be $8.724 billion and the anticipated revenues were $5.326 billion, representing funding for 61% of the freeway needs, thus leaving an unfunded gap of $3.326 billion through 2039. Table 4-1 summarizes the breakdown of funding contained in the Strategic Assessment by program and risk. 7 HDR, January 2016, Riverside County Strategic Assessment: Executive Summary, RCTC. 8 Since the document was prepared in 2015, it did not include several recent funding sources, which are discussed later in this memo. 9 HDR, November 4, 2015, RCTC Strategic Assessment Technical Memorandum: Task 4 Funding Gap Analysis. 255 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Table 4-1: Freeway Funding Program Amount (in millions) and Risk, 2016 to 2039 Funding Program Category A Category B Category C Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $219.7 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) $315.2 State Regional Improvement Program (RIP) $441.9 Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) $58.8 Mileage Based User -Fees (MBUF) $2,233.5 Local Measure A* $915.7 SR 91 Net Toll Revenues* $618.5 I-15 Express Lane Toll Revenues* $319.7 Mid County Parkway (MCP) toll revenues $153.5 Total (2016-2039) $2,880 $59 $2,387 *Debt service and operations and maintenance costs have been deducted from these amounts. Because the assessment was prepared in 2015 it did not include certain funding sources approved after that. New funding sources and their potential implications are described in the following sections. 4.2. FIXING AMERICANS SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) Act10 into law. Overall, the FAST Act largely maintains program structures and funding shares between highways and transit. The FAST Act provided two new grant programs - the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) and the Advanced Technology and Congestion programs - that could reasonably be expected to provide funding for freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County. Table 4-2 shows the new FAST funding amounts by program and risk category that could reasonably be expected to be available to RCTC each year based on a proportional allocation of total program funding: io Pub. L. No. 114-94 31 256 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Table 4-1: Projected RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions), 2017 to 2040 Funding Program Category A Category B Category C NSFHP (INFRA) $159.8 Advanced Technology and Congestion Management Deployment Program $10.7 Total $170.5 4.3. ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 SENATE BILL 1 In 2017 the California legislature passed and the governor signed into law a major transportation funding bill.' The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (referred to as SB1) provided additional funding to several existing programs, including the STIP, and established several new funding programs that are relevant to this study. Most of the SB1 funds that could go to freeways and interchanges are via competitive grant programs. Table 4-3 shows the projected allocation Riverside County could reasonably be expected to obtain based on a proportional share of the total funding proposed. Table 4-3: Projected RCTC Funding from SB1 (in millions), 2017 to 2040 Funding Program Category A Category B Category C LPP (county allocation) $162.9 TCEP $623.9 SCCP $360 LPP (competitive grant) $162.9 $162.9 $1,146.8 4.4. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FUNDING FROM ALL SOURCES To quantify the total funds that might be available to freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County through 2040, sources identified in the Strategic Assessment were combined those from FAST and SB1 programs. Table 4-4 combines funding sources to establish a total of anticipated freeway project funding through 2040 from all sources by risk category. 11 http://catc.ca.gov/ 32 257 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study Table 4-4: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions) Funding Source Category A Category B Category C Total Strategic Assessment Sources $2,948.6 $61 $2,465.8 Total New Sources $162.9 $1,317.3 Grand Total of All Sources $3111.5 $1,378.3 $2,465.8 As can be seen in Table 4-4, the infusion of SB1 funds, which are mostly allocated through competitive grants and therefore are considered risk category B, creates better balance across the risk categories than that found in the Strategic Assessment, which was heavily reliance on high -risk, category C funds. It should be noted that although the SB1 program has been legislated, there is an on -going repeal effort that jeopardizes the future availability of SB1 funding programs. The total estimated conceptual cost to complete the reasonable mitigation of deficient segments identified as part of this study is $385,335,000. Although only 12.4% of this cost can be attributed to new warehousing and logistics developments, the estimates of alternative funding sources described in this section clearly indicate that the remaining costs to complete these improvement projects could reasonably be expected to be obtained from existing and proposed funding sources after the logistics impact fee contributes a fair share for mitigation of logistics related impacts. Furthermore, the projected availability of future funding for freeway and interchange improvement projects is over six times the amount of the conceptual cost estimates to mitigate the impacts of new development on the freeway system indicating that sufficient funding might reasonably be expected to account for the expansion of scale and scope of associated freeway projects to address other project needs not directly attributable to the impacts of new development. 33 258 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 5. LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE AND NEXUS DETERMINATION The foundation established by accomplishing the various steps in the prior tasks provides the basis for computing the amount and value of the in -lieu fee to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new warehousing and logistics developments on the freeway network in Riverside County, as well as establishing the relationship between future growth of logistics related facilities within Riverside County, truck traffic growth, and the need for additional freeway improvements to mitigate the impacts of this growth. The maximum defensible fair - share fee that could be charged to new logistics uses for mitigating their impacts is presented in this section, along with a summary of the study findings that support the nexus determination. 5.1. LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION Utilizing the findings of the prior study tasks as presented in the previous sections of this report, the process for computing the fee requires dividing the project costs attributable to new logistics development as determined in Step 28 and summarized in Table 3-4 by the forecast amount of new warehousing and logistics facilities in square feet as determined in Step 4 and presented in Table 2-2 to produce a fee per square foot. Table 5-1: Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee Calculation Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee for Riverside County Logistics Cost Share of Freeway Mitigation $47,841,000 Growth in Warehouse Gross Floor Area in Square Feet 37, 332,179 Fee per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area $1.28 As derived from Table 2-2 and summarized in Table 5-1, the growth in warehousing gross floor area is forecast to grow by 37,332,179 square feet of gross floor area from 2016 to 2040, according to the SCAG Industrial Warehousing Study and as utilized in the Heavy Duty Truck Model. The travel demand modeling and deficiency analysis completed for this study indicates the growth in warehousing will result in the need to contribute $47,841,000 toward the cost of freeway capacity improvements throughout Riverside County to cover the logistics share of mitigating future freeway deficiencies, as presented in Table 3-4. This equates to a value of $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area of new warehousing and logistics developments to fully satisfy the fair share contribution. As such, this amount represents the maximum fee permissible to be collected under California law and in accordance with legal precedents to address the cumulative regional impacts of new warehousing and logistics developments on the freeways network in Riverside County. 34 259 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 5.2. NEXUS DETERMINATION The Mitigation Fee Act, as set forth in the California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008, establishes the framework for mitigation fees in the State of California. In establishing the basis for a fee to be implemented, the Act requires agencies to make five findings with respect to a proposed fee. These findings are described in the following sections. 5.2.1. Purpose of the Fee Identify the Purpose of the Fee The purpose of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee is to establish a uniform, fair -share mitigation fee to be paid by new warehouse and logistics developments to mitigate the cumulative, indirect, regional impacts of the truck traffic generated by these future developments on overall traffic conditions on the freeway network in Riverside County. The fees, to be paid in -lieu of completing specific improvements associated with a particular development, will be utilized to help fund capacity improvements on freeways in Riverside County that are needed to maintain the target level of service in the face of the higher traffic volumes brought on by new growth in the county. Specific to Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee for Riverside County, the completion of this study and the determination of a fair -share fee satisfies specific provisions of the July 29, 2016 Settlement Agreement between the County of Riverside, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the City of Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview. This agreement established that each party would contribute toward the cost of "an RCTC-conducted regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics -related regional fee." 5.2.2. Use of Fee Revenues Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified The Mitigation Fee Act requires that the public facilities that are to be financed using the impact fee be identified. In the case of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee, the deficiency analysis described in Section 2 identified those locations on the Riverside County freeway network that would be impacted by additional traffic growth associated with new development activity in Riverside County. This information was subsequently utilized in Section 3 to define specific improvement projects and the associated costs to mitigate the deficiencies, as summarized in Table 3-3. Furthermore, the share of the cost of each individual improvement project to specifically address the mitigation of impacts associated with the growth of warehousing and logistics uses was determined and summarized in Table 3-4 as the basis for calculating the logistics fee. 35 260 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 5.2.3. Use/Type-of-Development Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed To determine the "use" relationship, the development being assessed an impact fee must be reasonably shown to derive some use or benefit from the facility being built using the fee. In the case of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee, the projects to be funded by the fee were identified by completing deficiency analysis to determine where the additional traffic generated by new development in Riverside County would impact the freeway network. Improvement project concepts were developed to mitigate these impacts, with at least part of the cost of these improvements being determined to be attributable to new logistics related development. The fact that the projects that will be funded in part by the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee are to provide additional freeway capacity, and recognizing that freeways are the highest functional class of the roadway network and critically important on the regional roadway hierarchy, means that all residents and businesses in the county benefit in important ways from the maintenance of a reasonable level of service on these facilities. More specifically, most truck trips coming to or going from new warehouse and logistics uses can be expected to use area freeways for at least part of their trips, as demonstrated by the results of the deficiency analysis described in Section 2, and those that do not use freeways will nevertheless benefit because good traffic conditions on the area freeways will keep drivers from diverting to other roads and causing congestion in other parts of the county. Even residents or workers in the new developments who do not drive at all will benefit from access to goods and services made possible in part by the serviceability of the regional freeway network. 5.2.4. Need/Type-of-Development Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed To determine the "need" relationship the facilities to be financed by the fee must be shown to be needed at least in part because of the new development. The primary intended purpose of the regional transportation study as required by the July 29, 2016 Settlement Agreement was to determine the extent to which additional truck trips associated with new warehouses and logistics uses would impact the freeways in Riverside County as the basis for determining the fair share amount of in -lieu fee payments to adequately mitigate the impacts. This was determined by analyzing the forecast traffic demand with the expected degree of new development and comparing that with the demand without new development. Projects were analyzed individually and the degree to which the need for the project was attributable to new warehouses and logistics developments varied widely from project to project. The findings of this analysis is summarized in Table 3-4, which indicates that new warehousing and logistics development activities are responsible for a share of the overall mitigation needed to address future freeway capacity deficiencies. 36 261 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 5.2.5. Proportionality Relationship Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed The "proportionality" relationship requires that there be rough proportionality between the fee charged to each development and the cost of the facility being financed. In the case of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee, the share of truck traffic generated specifically by warehouses and logistics uses was estimated using the validated SCAG travel demand model as the basis to determine the rough proportion of the improvement cost to mitigate future deficiencies caused by these trucks on the Riverside County freeway network. Furthermore, the share of project costs was adjusted to account for those improvements already being completed by current funded capacity expansion projects, as well as the share of the cost of arterial interchange improvements necessary to accommodate freeway capacity expansion that are already being funded by the existing WRCOG TUMF program. The overall project cost share was also adjusted to account for existing capacity deficiencies that cannot be fully be attributed to new growth in Riverside County. Table 2-5 summarizes the attribution of various project cost factors resulting in the determination of the fair -share of improvement costs that are roughly proportional to the specific impacts of new warehouse and logistics uses. Additionally, the detailed cost breakdowns in Appendix B include the adjustments for project cost elements already covered as part of the WRCOG TUMF program. 5.3. CONCLUSIONS The findings of the RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Study indicate that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional freeway traffic impacts of new land development projects in Riverside County, including truck traffic impacts associated with new warehouse and logistics developments, and the need to mitigate these freeway traffic impacts, including using funds levied through a Regional Logistics Fee. The study evaluation results have established the proportional fair share of the freeway improvement cost attributable to truck trips generated by new warehouse and logistics development having adjusted for existing deficiencies, the impacts of other development type and the effects of pass through trips, and having accounted for improvements already being completed as part of an ongoing freeway project or funded by another impact fee. As presented in Table 5-1, the fair share fee to mitigate the cumulative indirect regional freeway traffic impacts of truck trips associated with new warehouse and logistics growth in Riverside County is $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area. 37 262 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 6. APPENDICES Appendix A — Capacity Improvement Concept Plans Appendix B — Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables 38 263 NNW RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study APPENDIX A - CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS A-1 264 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study APPENDIX B - CONCEPTUAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TABLES B-1 265 ATTACHMENT 2 RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND REGIONAL LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Warehouse -Related Land Use Data & Truck Travel Patterns Prepared for : Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: In partnership with FEH R Jj' PEERS October 2017 266 267 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY 3 2.1. COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS (CBP) 3 2.2. INFOGROUP GEOCODED DATABASE (SIC CODE) 9 2.3. SCAG WAREHOUSE STUDY 14 3. TRUCK COUNTS 24 4. TRUCK O-D AND ROUTING 28 5. WAREHOUSE TRIP GENERATION METHODOLOGY 36 5.1. CITY OF FONTANA TRUCK TRIP GENERATION STUDY 36 5.2. HIGH -CUBE WAREHOUSE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS 37 5.3. INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS (ITE) TRIP GENERATION MANUAL 40 5.4. SCAG HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK TRIP GENERATION (2016 RTP) 42 5.5. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES 44 6. DIAGNOSTIC TESTS OF SCAG MODEL 47 7. DATA ADEQUACY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51 268 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table of Tables Table 1. Description of Selected NAICS Categories 4 Table 2: Distribution of Establishments by Industry Category, 2015 6 Table 3. Growth in Establishments with 50+ Employees, 2008-2015 8 Table 4. Description of Selected SIC Categories 9 Table 5. High -Cube Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 17 Table 6. Low -Cube Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 17 Table 7. Amount of Warehouse Space by TAZs in Riverside County (KSF) 18 Table 8. SCAG 2013 Truck Classification Count Locations within Riverside County 24 Table 9. CALTRANS Truck Counts Database 27 Table 10. Heavy -Duty Truck 0-D Distribution in SCAG Region 29 Table 11. Medium -Duty Truck 0-D Distribution in SCAG Region 29 Table 12. Distribution of Trips by Zone for Medium -Duty Trucks (% by Destination) 31 Table 13. Distribution of Trips by Zone for Heavy -Duty Trucks (% by Destination) 32 Table 14. Share of Each Region from the Truck Traffic by Link 33 Table 15. Trip Generation Rates by Warehouse Type (Fontana Study) 37 Table 16. Trip Generation Rates by Warehouse Type (NAIOP Study) 39 Table 17. ITE Daily Trip Generation Rates for Industrial Land Use (Site Generators) 41 Table 18. Internal Truck Trip Generation Coefficient for Various Land Use Categories 43 Table 19. Employee per KSF Ratio in SCAG HDT model 43 Table 20. Summary of Uses Related to Warehouse Activities and Trip Generation Methodologies 45 Table 21. Summary Trip Generation Rates Related to Warehouse Activities 46 Table 22: Check of County -Level Truck Origin -Destination Distribution 47 Table 23: Comparison of Model's Truck Volumes to Counts of Actual Truck Traffic 50 269 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table of Figures Figure 1. Manufacturing Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005-2015 5 Figure 2. Transportation & Warehousing Establishments and Employment in Riverside 5 Figure 3. Wholesaling Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005-2015 5 Figure 4. Change in number of establishments with 100+ employees in Riverside County, 2008- 2015. 7 Figure 5. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Manufacturing 11 Figure 6. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Transportation & Warehousing12 Figure 7. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Wholesale Trade 13 Figure 8. Warehouse Area Trend from 2012-2040 in Riverside County 16 Figure 9. Warehouse Employment Trend from 2012 to 2040 in Riverside County 16 Figure 10. High Cube Warehouse Area in Riverside County in 2016 by SCAG Tier I TAZ 20 Figure 11. Low Cube Warehouse Area in Riverside County in 2016 by SCAG Tier I TAZ 21 Figure 12. SCAG Expected High Cube Warehouse Area Growth in Riverside County 2016 to 2040 by SCAG Tier I TAZ 22 Figure 13. SCAG Expected Low Cube Warehouse Area Growth in Riverside County 2016 to 2040 by SCAG Tier I TAZ 23 Figure 14. Zones Used in the 0-D Analysis 34 Figure 15. Selected Links for 0-D Analysis 35 Figure 16. Taxonomy of Uses with Major Warehouse Activities 44 Figure 17: Comparison of Model to Actual Traffic in the AM Peak Hour 49 Figure 18: Comparison of Model to Actual Traffic in the PM Peak Hour 49 Figure 19: Freeway Sections Used to Check Truck Forecasts 50 270 271 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 1. INTRODUCTION The RCTC Truck Study and Development and Implementation of Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee is intended to verify the anticipated rate of growth in warehousing and logistics -related development in Riverside County, and to quantify the associated level of traffic impacts on the Riverside County highway system as a result of the expected growth in warehousing and logistics activities. In quantifying impacts, the study is also intended to determine the amount that each new warehousing or logistics development should pay in lieu of completing actual freeway improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts specifically associated with truck trips generated by new warehousing and logistics developments. The findings of this study are intended to provide the basis for potentially implementing a program to collect impact fees that will contribute to mitigating the truck traffic impacts associated with new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County. Such a program can help to ensure that all new logistics -related development approved in Riverside County will bear a proportional fair share of the cost of building transportation infrastructure to address future transportation needs. This technical memorandum represents the first in a series of documents that will verify the rate of new warehousing and logistics related developments in Riverside County, the associated truck trip generation rates and cumulative regional traffic impacts, the cost to mitigate these impacts, and the fair share basis for collecting a potential fee. In this document, the existing conditions of the warehousing industry and truck travel patterns in Riverside County were reviewed for five primary activities: 1) Creating an inventory of existing warehouse -related land uses 2) Developing a projection of future warehouse -related land use (2040) 3) Analyzing a range of potential trip generation rates to apply in calculating fees 4) Tabulating existing truck volumes on major roadways 5) Generating information regarding truck origins/destinations This document also presents the results of existing and future baseline model runs to help quantify existing and future conditions on the Riverside County highway system. The objective of this technical memorandum is to provide the reader with an understanding of the various warehousing -related trucking activities, the historic trends of these types of activities, and the anticipated future of this industry in Riverside County. With this information as a basis, subsequent study tasks will quantify specific truck -related Page 1 272 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions infrastructure needs associated with growth in warehousing -related uses, and the potential for an impact fee to address these needs. The inventory and verification of available data sources as presented in this technical memorandum is ultimately intended to demonstrate the adequacy of these data to support the technical evaluation efforts to be undertaken in subsequent tasks. In particular, the review of existing conditions data sources provides the ability to verify the following specific aspects of the data related to the needs of subsequent evaluation tasks: • The available data provides appropriate levels of disaggregation for warehouse - related land uses to match the level of confidence in trip generation rates and forecasted growth in development • Trip generation rates are available to be applied for the purpose of identifying the fair share of trips attributable to warehousing and logistics development activities • The data provides the ability to define necessary adjustments in the forecasting model to match measured truck volumes and Origin -Destination (0-D) patterns It should be noted that the contents of this document are technical and detailed in nature, and are presented with the primary purpose of providing a transparent assessment of available data sources to support the determination of a fee representing the fair share to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of designated new developments. Unlike other types of transportation studies, where the assessment of underlying data sources and determination of assumptions might be conducted at a technical staff level, and only the methodology used and associated findings are presented in the study documentation, impact fee studies necessitate a more transparent approach to considering data sources and determining assumptions. For this reason, this technical memorandum effectively provides an additional level of background information presenting a more detailed consideration of the range of data sources available to support the evaluation to be conducted in subsequent tasks. In short, this technical memorandum is intended to describe what data sources are available and appropriate to support subsequent study tasks, with the specific assumptions and methodology to complete those tasks described in subsequent Technical Memoranda. Page 2 273 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 2. EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY Data from the County Business Patterns' (CBP), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and Infogroup provide alternative means to identify land uses related to warehousing. These datasets use different systems to classify industries; the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). The U.S. Census Bureau uses the NAICS structure. Similarly, SCAG uses the NAICS structure as the basis for developing regional employment forecasts as part of its long range planning responsibilities. While the SIC has generally been replaced by NAICS, several data vendors are still using SIC -based data. The establishment data used for this study was purchased from Infogroup which uses SIC codes. The NAICS applies a 6-digit hierarchical coding system to classify all economic activity into 20 industry sectors. Five sectors are mainly goods -producing sectors and 15 are entirely services - producing sectors. The SIC system is a 4-digit classification system. As would be expected, the 6-digit NAICS hierarchical structure allows greater coding flexibility than the 4-digit structure of the SIC system. Each establishment has a primary NAICS/SIC code. This number indicates a company's primary line of business. What determines a company's primary SIC code is the code definition that generates the highest revenue for that company at a specific location in the past year. Warehousing is identified with a specific code in both the NAICS and SIC systems. However, many other classification codes, such as wholesaling and manufacturing, involve significant amount of warehousing activities. Therefore every establishment usually defines their activity with a secondary NAICS/SIC code as well. Infogroup verify the establishments' primary and secondary codes regularly through their survey. In this study, both the primary and the secondary warehousing uses were investigated to have a complete understanding of warehousing activities in Riverside County. 2.1. COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS (CBP) Table 1 shows selected categories of NAICS, which are identified as primary or secondary warehousing uses. Although CBP data covers all establishments, it is only available at the county level. 1 County Business Patterns is an annual series of reports by the U.S. Census Bureau that provides subnational economic data by industry. This series includes the number of establishments, employment during the week of March 12, first quarter payroll, and annual payroll. Page 3 274 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Industry Code 31-33 (Manufacturing) 42 (Wholesale Trade) 48-49 (Transportation & Warehousing) Table 1. Description of Selected NAICS Categories Brief Description Establishments engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products. Assembling of component parts of manufactured products is considered manufacturing, except in cases where the activity is appropriately classified as Construction. (Example: Food Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills, Apparel Manufacturing, Wood Product Manufacturing, Chemical Manufacturing.) Establishments engaged in wholesaling merchandise, generally without transformation, and rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise. Includes the outputs of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and certain information industries, such as publishing. (Example:, Furniture and Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers, Household Appliances and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesalers.) Industries providing transportation of passengers and cargo, warehousing and storage for goods, scenic and sightseeing transportation, and support activities related to modes of transportation. Establishments in these industries use transportation equipment or transportation related facilities as a productive asset. Modes of transportation include air, rail, water, road, and pipeline. (Example: Freight Trucking Companies, Warehousing and Storage, Couriers and Delivery Services.) Source: North American Industry Classification System United States, Executive Office ofthe President Office of Management And Budget, 2077 There is no readily available information to separate the warehousing activity into establishments primarily registered as manufacturing or wholesale under the CBP database. Since this data is only available at the county level, it is not possible to make a detailed analysis. The historic comparison at the county level can only provide a high-level insight as a basis for comparison to support verification and validation of other data sources. Figure 1 through 3 are a series of graphs detailing both the number of establishments and the number of employees for the uses identified in Table 1 in Riverside County between 2005 and 2015 based on CBP data and categorized by NAICS sectors. The number of manufacturing establishments and employees declined in Riverside County during the 2008 to 2012 recession. Although they have rebounded somewhat, they have not yet returned to their pre -recession levels (see Figure 1). In contrast, Transportation & Warehousing employment rose more than 50% during the 2005 to 2015 period (see Figure 2). Wholesale Trade increased modestly over the same period (see Figure 3). Page 4 275 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions MANUFACTURING Figure 1. Manufacturing Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005- 2015 1,650 1,600 1,550 1,500 1,450 1,400 1,350 1,300 1,250 Riverside County Manufacturing (31-33) Number of Establishments �it�i■iiii 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TRANSPORTATION & WAREHOUSING 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Riverside County Manufacturing (31-33) Paid Employees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 2. Transportation & Warehousing Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005-2015 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 a Riverside County Transportation & Warehousing (48-49) Number of Establishments •■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 WHOLESALE 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Riverside County Transportation & Warehousing (48-49) Paid Employees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2913 2014 2015 Figure 3. Wholesaling Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005-2015 Riverside County Wholesale Trade (42) Number of Establishments 2,500 - 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 - 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Riverside County Wholesale Trade (42) Paid Employees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Census County Business Pattern data 2005-2015 Page 5 276 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions As of 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, these three sectors continue to be dominated by small establishments, with at least 85% of establishments in each category having fewer than 20 employees. Countywide, there are only 17 establishments with 500 or more employees (five in manufacturing, eight in transportation and warehousing, and four in wholesale trade), and only five with 1,000 or more employees (one in manufacturing and four in transportation & warehousing). Table 2: Distribution of Establishments by Industry Category, 2015 Employees Manufacturing Transportation and warehousing Wholesale trade Sum 1 to 4 employees 587 761 983 2,331 5 to 9 employees 265 204 335 804 10 to 19 employees 216 121 258 595 20 to 49 employees 207 78 143 428 50 to 99 employees 109 37 54 200 100 to 249 employees 87 23 20 130 250 to 499 employees 19 15 9 43 500 to 999 employees 4 4 4 12 1,000 employees or 1 4 0 5 All establishments 1495 1247 1806 4,548 Large manufacturing and wholesale establishments have significantly higher warehousing activities than smaller ones. Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine the pattern in growth of large establishments in Riverside County (Figure 4 and Table 3). Although the overall number of establishments with 100 or more employees has decreased since 2008 in the manufacturing and wholesale trade sectors, it has increased in the transportation & warehousing sector. Additionally, the number of establishments with 1,000 or more employees in the transportation & warehousing sector grew from one to four during this period. Figure 4 and Table 3 demonstrate a general growth trend in each of these three market sectors following the effects of the Great Recession causing declines, particularly in the manufacturing sector. These data also demonstrate considerable diversity in the size of the businesses within this sector in terms of total employees, with a general trend toward more numerous small businesses compared to large businesses. The general trend for growth in these market sectors that directly and indirectly include warehousing and logistics related activities, as well as the diversity in business sizes, support inclusion of the full range of these activities in each sector be considered to assess the extent of associated transportation impacts and mitigation needs. Page 6 277 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 4. Change in number of establishments with 100+ employees in Riverside County, 2008-2015. 160 ` 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 139 44 40 105 97 102 41 34 33 34 35 39 46 34 33 34 35 36 37 33 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Manufacturing Wholesale trade Transportation and warehousing Although building area is very desirable for the purpose of this study, Census does not provide any information about the square footage of warehouses or other establishments. Census, and therefore by reference other regional socio-economic forecasts like those developed by SCAG, are based on employees. Page 7 278 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table 3. Growth in Establishments with 50+ Employees, 2008-2015 Manufacturing Employees 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 100-249 106 80 74 80 82 81 84 87 250-499 24 19 20 17 19 20 21 19 500-999 7 5 2 4 4 4 4 4 1000+ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total 139 105 97 102 106 106 110 111 Transportation and warehousing Employees 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 100-249 25 15 17 20 22 28 25 23 250-499 13 16 11 8 7 8 9 15 500-999 5 2 4 3 5 3 3 4 1000+ 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 4 Total 44 34 33 34 35 41 39 46 Wholesale trade Employees 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 100-249 29 21 19 20 22 22 23 20 250-499 7 9 9 11 10 12 11 9 500-999 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 4 1000+ 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 Total 40 34 33 34 35 36 37 33 Page 8 279 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 2.2. INFOGROUPGEOCODED DATABASE (SIC CODE) Infogroup's2 database provides information about businesses' location, size, and industry classification code. Although the data does not provide a complete list of all establishments, it has sufficient quality and coverage that it can be used to gain an extensive understanding of land uses and concentration of activities in various parts of the county. Commercial establishments are organized by SIC code. In addition, the data is further broken down by number of employees at each establishment. Using this data, it is possible to get an idea of both the scope and scale of various industries in Riverside County. For informational purposes, a short description of each of the SIC categories relevant to this analysis is provided below. Industry Code 20-39 (Manufacturing) 42 (Transportation & Warehousing) 50-51 (Wholesale Trade) Table 4. Description of Selected SIC Categories Brief Description Establishments engaged in the mechanical or chemical transformation of materials or substances into new products. Usually described as plants, factories, or mills and characteristically use power driven machines and materials handling equipment. Establishments engaged in assembling component parts of manufactured products are also considered manufacturing if the new product is neither a structure nor other fixed improvement. Also included is the blending of materials, such as lubricating oils, plastics resins, or liquors. Establishments furnishing local or long-distance trucking or transfer services, or those engaged in the storage of farm products, furniture and other household goods, or commercial goods of any nature. The operation of terminal facilities for handling freight, with or without maintenance facilities, is also included. Establishments primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers; to industrial, commercial, institutional, farm, construction contractors, or professional business users; or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers in buying merchandise for or selling merchandise to such persons or companies. Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration As shown on Figure 5, manufacturing establishments of all sizes (by primary or secondary SIC) are most heavily concentrated in Corona and Riverside along major freeway corridors, although the figure also demonstrates these activities are broadly distributed across the urbanized areas of Riverside County. Other areas with high concentrations include Mira Loma, Murrieta and Temecula. Corona, Riverside and Temecula are the only cities that contain manufacturing establishments with more than 500 employees. 2 Infogroup is a private vendor of data on businesses. Page 9 280 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Represented on Figure 6, transportation & warehousing establishments with fewer than 50 employees are dispersed throughout the county, with the highest concentrations of establishments in Riverside, Corona and Temecula. Based on the primary SIC, only one establishment exceeds 50 employees and it is located in Mira Loma. Based on the secondary SIC, seven additional warehouse establishments have more than 50 employees; they are located in Corona, Mira Loma, Palm Desert and Riverside. A total of 2,237 establishments countywide are characterized in wholesale trade as a primary function (Figure 7). This is several times larger than either manufacturing (567) or warehousing & transportation (483). Wholesale establishments of all sizes are similarly dispersed across the urbanized areas of the county, with some degree of concentration in Corona, Riverside and Temecula. There are six large wholesale establishments classified under primary code 50 and 51, with more than 500 employees in Coachella, Moreno Valley and Temecula. Based on the secondary SIC, there are also large wholesale establishments in Corona and Perris. In addition, there are 10 wholesale establishments with more than 500 employees in Perris. It should be noted that there is no manufacturing, warehousing & transportation, or wholesale establishments of significance currently identified in the dataset within Blythe or the greater Palo Verde Valley. For this reason, the study effort will primarily focus on development activity in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. The overall number of establishments in each category is broadly consistent with the CBP numbers for Wholesale Trade, but not for Manufacturing and Transportation & Warehousing, where CBP shows a significantly larger number of establishments countywide. This is to be expected, given that CBP aims to be comprehensive, whereas Infogroup seeks to provide a sample and may take a more conservative approach in defining establishments. The Infogroup data is, however, useful in providing some idea of where establishments are or are not concentrated within the county. For each category, however, Infogroup appears to capture about a third of the establishments identified by CBP. Recognizing the limitations of the respective datasets, each provides useful information to validate and augment data derived from established regional sources, like SCAG, for the purposes of completing this study. Page 10 281 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 5. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Manufacturing Ra9Eho Gumonga San Clemente ` t t_ San hand, �;�tJ,o Fontana Bternardln• A+,''�=�' T Rialto .-- vmni>-Redlands Grand Linda emace Yucaipa Camp 14andkton Marina FalIbrook . / .a r i r'r. shn 1,1,Mi1 5 nfo' Jo, i stale F'srlc Idyllwild Employee Size Primairy SIC Secondary SIC • 1-49 • 1-49 • 50-99 • 50-99 100-249 • 100-249 • 250 499 • 250-499 • 500+ • 500+ V v aim rings irriVeinine Pa$ms n .. tre. N Sion-1 na(A --Santa Rosa SEn Jacinto Mbunt„, Employee Size 0-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Sum Number of Establishments (Primary SIC) 403 87 57 16 4 567 Number of Establishments (Secondary SIC) 140 24 14 9 0 187 A NORTE Page 11 282 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 6. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Transportation & Warehousing 4 r Rancho Fontana 4On,., Cuoimonga No San Clemente San hland $ernardlnea edlands Yucaipa ecula Fallbrook t• Camp F6ndleton a' e.. VA/I . Manna .. Lf;unl �an J,a into Stale raft_ • • jdyllWlld Employee Size Primairy SIC Secondary SIC 0, 1-49 • 1-49 • 50-99 • 50-49 • 100-249 • 100-249 250-499 • 259-499 • 500+ • 500+ lWnn+ynine Pstms .tT i r'aTre- ux�ooa�i ants Rosa San Jacinto Mountain., National Mon_u�y nti _ f __^Y .s .gam r Employee Number of Establishments Number ofEstabllshmerts Size (Pr]marySIC) (Secondary SIC) A 0-49 482 75 50-99 0 2 100-249 1 4 250-499 0 1 500+ 0 0 Sum 483 82 - .g11 Page 12 283 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 7. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Wholesale Trade On tad') �SIDh rlel O ' 5r'Or` y San 9hland Cu mohga Fontana —, garnardinp Rialto Rancho 5 onto h1 a rg ari to Yucaipa le Hot - 1 P ui n=cmia mi, on t ♦ 44. Employee Size Primairy SIC Secondary SIC 1-49 1-49 50 99 • 50 49 100-249 • 100-249 414 250-499 • 250-499 500+ • 500+ Palm: f rlr� l J � J to Employee Number of Establishments Number of Establishments Size (PrimarySIC) (Secondary SIC) 0-49 2125 1814 50-99 56 38 100-249 44 46 250-499 6 10 500+ 6 6 Sum 2237 1914 Page 13 284 285 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 2.3. SCAG WAREHOUSE STUDY SCAG's Industrial Warehouse Study provides estimates of existing and future warehouse square footage. Unfortunately at the time of preparing this report, this study was not officially released and therefore associated data were not able to be access for this study. The information presented here are based on land use data provided in the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model (HDT) developed for the 2016 RTP. Warehouses are classified as High -Cube and Low -Cube in the SCAG HDT model. The high -cube warehouse is generally defined as a building with over 200,000 square feet of floor area and with a ceiling height of 24 feet or higher. The primary use of high -cube warehouses is storage, consolidation, and distribution of manufactured goods. A high -cube warehouse is distinguished from a low -cube, or traditional, warehouse by several factors. Most prominent among these is a relative lack of automation in low -cube warehouses, leading to a larger number of human employees. High -cube warehouses, on the other hand, takes advantage of a very high degree of automation. In addition, the two types are differentiated by economies of scale. Low -cube, traditional warehouses tend to be smaller on a square footage basis, with lower degree of automation, but higher employee per square feet ratio. High -cube warehouses process larger shipments with fewer employees relative to the warehouse's square footage. This means that, as compared to high -cube warehouses, low -cube warehouses generate fewer truck trips per employee (owing to the relatively larger number of employees proportional to size) but more truck trips per thousand square feet (because of smaller size of warehouse and smaller size of shipments). By way of example, automation may mean that employees at a high -cube warehouse are able to handle higher shipment volumes than their counterparts at low -cube warehouses. Not only are total shipment volumes likely to be higher, but each individual shipment is likely to be larger. This means that truck trips are divided over a smaller number of employees. A low - cube warehouse will handle, on average, smaller shipments, and need a comparatively larger number of employees to handle them. This means that those truck trips handled at a low -cube warehouse will be spread over a larger number of employees. Based on information in 2016 SCAG HDT model, Riverside County is home to 76 million square feet of high -cube and low -cube warehouse space, and it is projected to grow through approximately 2030, before leveling off in expectation of market competition from other land uses. It is anticipated that in the long term, the attractiveness of other land uses and a lack of Page 14 286 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions easily developable land will exert downward pressure on the growth of warehouse square footage and employment in Riverside County. The changes predicted by this forecast are indicated in the figures below. By either measure (number of employment or square footage), the increase in warehouse capacity in Riverside County will be substantial during the 2012 to 2040 period, and constitutes both high -cube and low -cube warehouse growth. It is important to note that the comparison between 2012 and other years is not possible since the definition of "warehouse area" between 2012 baseline scenario and other scenarios are not consistent. The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space, while the area shown in 2016 and years after includes only planned occupied floor space. Therefore the comparison analysis are only presented based on 2016 and 2040 scenarios for consistency. As shown on Figure 8 and Figure 9, although both high -cube and low -cube warehouse capacity are projected to increase substantially between 2016 and 2040, the increase for low - cube warehouse space is from 20,111 KSF to 31,232 KSF during this period (55%). This is significantly greater on a percentage basis (but lower in absolute terms) than the anticipated increase for high -cube warehouses space, from 56,393 KSF to 69,410 KSF (23%). As shown in detail on Table 5, and Table 6, this difference is somewhat less pronounced for employment, with low -cube warehouses increasing from 3,819 to 7,427 employees (94%), but with high -cube warehouses increasing from 3,256 employees to 6,185 by 2040 (90%). It is important to remember that these forecasts are based on model data that must be considered in the context of modeling limitations. The addition or subtraction of just a few projects, particularly on the scale of high -cube warehouses, has the potential to make real - world conditions significantly different from the model's prediction. Despite the limitations in the model data, the anticipated growth in both high -cube and low -cube warehousing activity reiterates the appropriateness of considering all warehousing and logistics related uses as part of this study effort to assess the full transportation system impacts of this anticipated growth. Page 15 287 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 8. Warehouse Area Trend from 2012-2040 in Riverside County 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 . QJ CU u_ 60,000,000 RI ■ Low -Cube m o- �' 40,000,000 ■High-Cu be 20,000,000 0 2012* 2016 2020 2030 2040 Year *The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space. The area shown in 2016 and years after includes planned occupied floor space. Source: SCAG 2016 RTP Figure 9. Warehouse Employment Trend from 2012 to 2040 in Riverside County 16,000 14,000 12,000 v 10,000 v o 8,000 a E w 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1 2012* 2016 2020 2030 2040 Year ■ Low -Cube ■ High -Cube *The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space. The area shown in 2016 and years after includes planned occupied floor space. Source: SCAG 2016 RTP Table 5 and Table 6 show the employment ratio per 1000 square feet of each warehouse category. Based on SCAG information, the employee ratio for low -cube warehouse is at least twice higher than the ratio for high -cube warehouse. The tables also reflect a modest increase Page 16 288 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions over time in the ratio of employees per KSF for both high -cube and low -cube warehouses, although it not clear why this ratio is increasing in future year. Table 5. High -Cube Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 Year 2012* 2016 2020 2030 2040 Warehouse Area (square feet) 41,281,541 48,837,363 56,393,177 64,664,947 69,410,192 Employment 1,793 Employee/KSF 0.04 2,810 0.06 3,819 0.07 6,120 0.09 7,427 0.11 Table 6. Low -Cube Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 Year 2012* 2016 2020 2030 2040 Warehouse Area (square feet) 8,833,418 14,472,627 20,111,826 26,810,782 31,231,977 Employment 1,804 Employee/KSF 0.20 2,533 0.18 3,256 0.16 5,070 0.19 6,185 0.20 *The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space. The area shown in 2016 and years after includes planned occupied floor space. Source: SCAG 2016 RTP Table 7 shows the anticipated growth in high- and low -cube warehouse space in each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) in Riverside County that has warehouse space. The rightmost column in the chart provides the sum in growth of both high- and low -cube warehouses during the period from 2016 to 2040. SCAG's forecast anticipates that warehouse square footage growth will be highly concentrated. A single TAZ on the outskirts of Moreno Valley accounts for 56.3 % of the expected growth between 2016 and 2040, and the 10 TAZs with the highest expected growth (on an absolute basis) will account for 90.3 % of the county's overall warehouse growth in this period. Of the top 10, three are located in Moreno Valley, two are located in Coachella, and one each are located in Corona, Perris, Lake Elsinore,]urupa Valley, and Hemet. The spatial distribution of this forecast reflects known warehousing and logistics development plans (like the World Page 17 289 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Logistics Center in Moreno Valley) along with the influences of declining land availability in the region for warehouse and logistics related uses over time, especially high -cube uses that demand larger sites with transportation system accessibility. This influence of declining land availability is also reflected in the leveling off of the forecast rate of growth described previously, which accounts for the exhaustion of readily available land in later forecast years and the associated economics of locating highest and best value land uses making it less desirable to locate additional warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County. Table 7. Amount of Warehouse Space by TAZs in Riverside County (KSF) TAZ_I D 43344 43336 43338 43148 43571 43130 43364 43573 43302 43305 43264 43187 43575 43260 43452 43345 43448 43286 43332 43249 43395 43415 43134 43454 43168 High - cube 2016 Low - cube 2016 5,417 2,323 641 1,497 101 231 4,437 410 2,050 465 182 655 302 119 156 37 2,031 820 172 60 101 44 3,197 1,716 131 2,992 244 474 454 119 491 High - cube 2020 Low - cube 2020 10,834 4,646 1,282 2,993 202 462 4,437 614 2,050 465 182 1,072 604 239 311 75 2,031 1, 343 119 202 88 3,197 1,860 262 2,992 244 474 509 237 491 High - cube 2030 Low - cube 2030 16,778 7,201 2,421 5,657 297 696 4,438 892 382 2,050 545 221 232 281 1,072 604 200 299 311 75 2,032 1,002 344 109 180 87 202 88 3,198 1,864 262 2,993 328 474 554 237 491 77 High - cube 2040 Low - cube 2040 20,136 8,628 3,198 7,461 355 822 4,437 1,029 594 2,050 988 331 293 421 1,072 604 300 340 311 75 2,031 1,002 343 163 209 149 202 88 3,197 1,860 262 2,992 369 474 574 237 491 116 Total Change from 2016- 2040 21,024 8,521 845 619 594 522 442 421 417 302 300 221 193 180 172 163 150 149 145 144 131 124 120 119 116 Percent change from 2016 - 2040 271.63% 398.55 % 254.52% 12.77% 0.00% 20.80% 242.86 % 0.00% 63.66% 100.00% 0.00% 185.71% 100.00% 6.38 % 99.42% 0.00% 248.33 % 0.00% 100.00% 2.93% 100.00% 3.86 % 12.93% 99.16% 23.63% Percent of total growth countywide 56.31% 22.82% 2.26 % 1.66% 1.59 % 1.40 % 1.18 % 1.13 % 1.12 % 0.81 % 0.80% 0.59 % 0.52% 0.48 % 0.46 % 0.44% 0.40 % 0.40 % 0.39 % 0.39% 0.35 % 0.33 % 0.32% 0.32% 0.31 % Page 18 290 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions TAZ_I D 43409 43366 43236 43399 43265 43488 43563 43246 43276 43429 43162 43181 43420 43261 43136 43310 43125 43474 43397 43188 43214 TOTAL High - cube 2016 Low - cube 2016 High - cube 2020 Low - cube 2020 High - cube 2030 Low - cube 2030 72 59 83 165 165 81 162 163 53 78 155 156 308 162 308 162 308 208 328 487 328 547 328 548 59 117 118 57 115 115 33 821 61 821 61 822 95 286 48 286 96 286 97 120 163 163 289 193 289 233 289 233 40 80 80 5,048 692 5,048 727 5,049 729 32 65 65 31 62 62 380 145 380 175 380 175 285 311 312 30,927 11,256 38,481 15,892 46,750 23,587 High - cube 2040 Low - cube 2040 108 89 165 162 80 155 308 232 328 547 117 115 56 821 112 286 96 163 289 233 80 5,048 727 65 62 380 175 311 51,498 28,016 Total Change from 2016- 2040 108 89 83 81 80 78 70 61 59 57 56 51 48 43 40 40 36 32 31 30 27 37,334 Percent change from 2016 - 2040 0.00% 0.00% 98.80% 100.00% 0.00% 98.72% 14.89% 7.36% 98.31% 101.75% 0.00% 5.78% 14.37% 35.83% 8.30% 100.00% 0.61% 103.13% 100.00% 5.71% 9.12% 88.50% Percent of total growth countywide 0.29% 0.24% 0.22% 0.22 % 0.21 % 0.21% 0.19% 0.16% 0.16% 0.15% 0.15% 0.14% 0.13% 0.12% 0.11% 0.11% 0.10% 0.09% 0.08% 0.08% 0.07% 100.00% Source: SCAG Warehouse Study Page 19 291 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 10. High Cube Warehouse Area in Riverside County in 2016 by SCAG Tier I TAZ • piria•Als7 Oriiario ino Rancho Cucamonga Fontana Rialto San (ghland BernardinCt I - toma Redlands Grand Linda Terrace ...."1101,01114):11;AparIcra. ‘14411P, Yucaipa —~-4kW ..i.be+tc-;;; !n,.1 36 1 � • ;dr r r i ew"'+w.� fr A- f le, ,; 1wei-it lint P Ili; f j� � t f 1116 1 I V *�Ilialiyyi�■ '` 1114* AI %fir' .4.‘d.".itt Kam tA zipsia1a_ -lion rieio la el 1#11r � • ot SAL P6.6411' ak Ili III� Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemante Camp Ftnd6ten Mar Fallbrook Mi feiININfr of 'h 3,tale Fzrl rJab: n._I LI-oilmenl High Cube Warehouse Area (2016) O Less than 10 ksf O 10-1000 ksf O 1000-2000 ksf 1.1 2000-3000 ksf • 3000-4000 ksf 1.1 Greater than 4000 ksf 20 292 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 11. Low Cube Warehouse Area in Riverside County in 2016 by SCAG Tier I TAZ 7itario ino Rancho Cucamonga Fontana Rialto sari Highland Bernardinp I 1� 1" - toma Redlands Grand Linda Terrace Yucaipa to 1 4910' f - i �• J- r f 1��� 4441.0..it �i Pk. �Ct a�Ii1lll2 � ��� ' ill, , 1 11�y� _.,� . $ �111141 00 147111.1owdssi �� 1� dr& I a di IT tdkji pit -lion rieio la el Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente Camp Fend6ten lul rInA F al (brook Idyllv:ilcl _p-71111111‘ 10 . ILA . �. = Autetp.1/4.. � r g r Low Cube Warehouse Area (2016) O Less than 10 ksf 0 10-400 ksf O 400-800 ksf NI 800-1200 ksf • 1200-1600 ksf 1.1 Greater than 1600 ksf ric Page 21 293 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 12. SCAG Expected High Cube Warehouse Area Growth in Riverside County 2016 to 2040 by SCAG Tier I TAZ Rancho Santa M1 a rg ari to San Clemente Wrentynine Palm: nta Rosa Sen Jacinto Mount-r b� Natonal kionurMriP High Cube Warehouse Area O Less than 250 ksf ii 2016 - TAZs greater than 250 ksf O 2020 - Additional TAZs greater than 250 ksf O 2030 - Additional TAZs greater than 250 ksf O 2040 - Additional TAZs greater than 250 ksf Page 22 294 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 13. SCAG Expected Low Cube Warehouse Area Growth in Riverside County 2016 to 2040 by SCAG Tier I TAZ i.Tfropt*Ini-jr�: Rancho _ - 1� Cucamonga Fontana Rialto On rJo Ino scion riejo la el • $4:44 •. Ayala ■ in _J Zit 41"."11 R,��K.,�,�♦ N� * miki�, San-14109hland Bernardino Loma Redlands Grand Linda Terrace Yucaipa Rancho Santa Margari to San Clemente t� Wig& qur a� 4 ,4 -*mg Camp Flandkten __ Marine �,ildo ii 47,r „,,,,,,,,,„,, 6 *...., ��ii, Falit) rook 7wentynine Pain. Is ikb-• Nok �u rnt, L5�un1- Ire r i n> r. l Lb num,-nl Low Cube Warehouse Area O Less than 150 ksf 1.1 2016 - TAZs greater than 150 ksf O 2020 - Additional TAZs greater than 150 ksf O 2030 - Additional TAZs greater than 150 ksf O 2040 - AdditionaE TAZs greater than 150 ksf NORTF Page 23 295 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 3. TRUCK COUNTS The SCAG RTP 2016 uses a comprehensive truck count database (2012-2013 counts) for HDT model calibration. This information helps to understand the magnitude of trucking activities on various segments of highway. This database has 74 locations on state and interstate facilities in Riverside County, as indicated in the following table. SCAG is currently conducting a project to update this database using 2016 counts. Table 8 summarizes available truck counts on the state highway system in Riverside County. By comparing actual truck counts and GPS sample truck 0-D information, it is possible to validate data derived from the SCAG regional model as well as estimate the share of truck traffic on each segment that is generated in Riverside County relative to the through traffic (trips with both origin and destination outside of the county) Table 8. SCAG 2013 Truck Classification Count Locations within Riverside County Facility TYPE ON STREET CROSS STREET CROSS STREET 2 Interstate I 10 (REDLANDS FWY) EB Main St SH 111 Interstate I 10 (REDLANDS FWY) EB Main St SH 111 Interstate I 10 (REDLANDS FWY) WB Main St SH 111 Interstate I 10 (REDLANDS FWY) WB Main St SH 111 Interstate Interstate Interstate I 10 EB WEST OF I 10 EB Dillon Rd I 10 EB WEST OF MESA DR Aqueduct Rd Intchg MESA DR Interstate I 10 EB Dillon Rd Aqueduct Rd Intchg Interstate I 10 EB (Sonny Bono Memorial Fwy) N Gene Autry Trl Date Palm Dr Interstate I 10 EB (Sonny Bono Memorial Fwy) N Gene Autry Trl Date Palm Dr Interstate I 10 WB WEST OF MESA DR Interstate Interstate Interstate Interstate I 10 WB Dillon Rd I10WB WEST OF I 10 WB Dillon Rd I 10 WB (Sonny Bono Memorial Fwy) N Gene Autry Trl Aqueduct Rd Intchg MESA DR Aqueduct Rd Intchg Date Palm Dr Interstate FWOWB (Sonny Bono Memorial N Gene Autry Trl Date Palm Dr Y) Interstate I 15 (ONTARIO FWY) NB 68th St Detroit St Interstate I 15 (ONTARIO FWY) NB 68th St Detroit St Interstate I 15 (ONTARIO FWY) SB 68th St Detroit St Page 24 296 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Facility TYPE ON STREET CROSS STREET CROSS STREET 2 Interstate I 15 (ONTARIO FWY) SB Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) NB Interstate 68th St Detroit St Temescal Canyon Rd Lake St I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) NB Baxter Rd Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) NB Interstate Clinton Keith Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Lake St I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) NB Baxter Rd Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) SB Interstate Clinton Keith Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Lake St I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) SB Baxter Rd Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) SB Interstate Clinton Keith Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Lake St I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) SB Baxter Rd Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) NB Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) NB Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) NB Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) NB Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) SB Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) SB Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) SB Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) SB Interstate I 215 (RIVERSIDE FWY) NB Interstate I 215 (RIVERSIDE FWY) NB Interstate I 215 (RIVERSIDE FWY) SB Interstate I 215 (RIVERSIDE FWY) SB State Route -Full Access E PALM CANYON DR State Route -Full Access E PALM CANYON DR State Route -Full Access Grapefruit Blvd State Route -Full Access Grapefruit Blvd State Route -Full Access Grapefruit Blvd State Route -Full Access Grapefruit Blvd State Route -Full Access PINACATE RD State Route -Full Access PINACATE RD State Route -Full Access S 71 (CORONA EXPY) NB State Route -Full Access S 71 (CORONA EXPY) NB State Route -Full Access S 71 (CORONA EXPY) SB State Route -Full Access S 71 (CORONA EXPY) SB State Route -Full Access S 74 (PINES TO PALMS HIGHWAY) Clinton Keith Rd W Nuevo Rd North D St Keller Rd Clinton Keith Rd W Nuevo Rd North D St Keller Rd Clinton Keith Rd W Nuevo Rd North D St Keller Rd Clinton Keith Rd W Nuevo Rd North D St Keller Rd Clinton Keith Rd Center St Columbia Ave Center St Columbia Ave Center St Columbia Ave Center St Columbia Ave N Gene Autry Trl Golf Club Dr N Gene Autry Trl Golf Club Dr Ave 48 Ave 49 At Imperial / Riverside County Line Ave 48 Ave 49 At Imperial / Riverside County Line Antelope Rd Palomar Rd Antelope Rd Palomar Rd EUCLID AVE S 91 (RIVERSIDE FWY) EUCLID AVE S 91 (RIVERSIDE FWY) EUCLID AVE S 91 (RIVERSIDE FWY) EUCLID AVE S 91 (RIVERSIDE FWY) Santa Rosa Rd PALM CANYON DR Page 25 297 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Facility TYPE ON STREET CROSS STREET CROSS STREET 2 State Route -Full Access S 74 (PINES TO PALMS HIGHWAY) State Route -Full Access State Highway 74 / Pines to Palms Hwy State Route -Full Access State Highway 74 / Pines to Palms Hwy State Route -Full Access WINCHESTER RD State Route -Full Access WINCHESTER RD State Route -Full Access WINCHESTER RD State Route -Limited Access S 60 (Moreno Valley Fwy) EB State Route -Limited Access S 60 (Moreno Valley Fwy) EB State Route -Limited Access S 60 (Moreno Valley Fwy) WB State Route -Limited Access S 60 (Moreno Valley Fwy) WB State Route -Limited Access S 60 (POMONA FWY) EB State Route -Limited Access S 60 (POMONA FWY) EB State Route -Limited Access S 60 (POMONA FWY) WB State Route -Limited Access S 60 (POMONA FWY) WB State Route -Limited Access S 91 (Riverside Fwy) EB State Route -Limited Access S 91 (Riverside Fwy) EB State Route -Limited Access S 91 (Riverside Fwy) WB State Route -Limited Access S 91 (Riverside Fwy) WB State Route -Limited Access State Hwy 86 NB State Route -Limited Access State Hwy 86 NB State Route -Limited Access State Hwy 86 SB State Route -Limited Access State Hwy 86 SB Santa Rosa Rd PALM CANYON DR South of Portola Ave South of Portola Ave Thompson Rd Pourroy Rd Thompson Rd Pourroy Rd Thompson Rd Pourroy Rd Moreno Beach Dr Redlands Blvd Moreno Beach Dr Redlands Blvd Moreno Beach Dr Redlands Blvd Moreno Beach Dr Redlands Blvd Hall Ave Market St Hall Ave Market St Hall Ave Market St Hall Ave Market St Chino Valley Fwy (SH 71) Serfas Club Dr/ Auto Center Dr Chino Valley Fwy (SH 71) Serfas Club Dr/ Auto Center Dr Chino Valley Fwy (SH 71) Serfas Club Dr/ Auto Center Dr Chino Valley Fwy (SH 71) Serfas Club Dr/ Auto Center Dr Dillon Rd 50th Ave Dillon Rd 50th Ave Dillon Rd 50th Ave Dillon Rd 50th Ave Caltrans regularly conducts vehicle classification counts on different segments of the highway network. The 2015 counts are presented in Table 9. Page 26 298 299 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions ID Route 1 10 Post mile R58.89 Leg A 2 10 R105.087 B 3 10 R105.087 A 4 10 R149.15 B 5 10 R149.15 A 6 15 22.277 B Table 9. CALTRANS Truck Counts Database Description and Approximate Location Dillon Rd. (Coachella) Jct. Rte. 177 North (Desert Center) Jct. Rte. 177 North (Desert Center) Jct. Rte. 78 South (Blythe) Jct. Rte. 78 South (Blythe) Jct. Rte. 74 (Lake Elsinore) Vehicle AADT Total 25,000 Truck AADT Total Truck % Total Vehicle Truck AADT Total by number of Axles % Truck AADT by number of Axles 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 8,693 35 1,110 198 94 7,291 12.8 2.3 1.1 83.9 24,600 8,693 35 1,110 198 94 7,291 12.8 2.3 1.1 83.9 8,721 37 1,128 169 96 7,328 12.9 1.9 1.1 84.0 25,300 8,730 35 1,053 177 133 7,367 12.1 2.0 1.5 84.4 8,881 33 1,174 197 108 7,402 13.2 2.2 1.2 83.3 125,000 9,331 7 4,736 664 307 3,624 50.8 7.1 3.3 38.8 23,700 2 7, 000 Source: Ca/trans 2075 Truck counts. Page 27 300 301 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 4. TRUCK O-D AND ROUTING A sample of mobile device and GPS truck trajectory data for weekdays in September 2016 was purchased from Streetlight® for this study. This data was used to identify truck origin - destination (0-D) patterns between zones in Riverside County, and between Riverside County and other regions, in part to validate similar information derived from the SCAG model. This data is also particularly helpful in identifying the share of through trips (trips with origin and destination outside of Riverside County, but passing through the county). For the purposes of the 0-D analysis, the TAZs in SCAG model were aggregated into 22 zones representing Riverside County and 11 zones representing the SCAG region outside Riverside County. Figure 14 shows the boundaries of these zones. This Streetlight data is classified by truck weights: heavy-duty trucks and medium -duty trucks. Heavy-duty trucks are those with minimum gross weight of 26,000 pounds. The medium -duty trucks are those with gross weight between 14,000 and 26,000 pounds. Table 10 and Table 11 show the 0-D distribution for these two truck categories within the SCAG counties. Trips with at least one end external to the region are excluded from these tables. The GPS data was used to create a detailed 0-D distribution between the 33 identified zones, which will be used by the team to fine-tune the model forecasts. In this analysis intermediate stops (less than 30 minutes), which are presumably for fuel or food, are eliminated so that long-distance trips are not mistaken for a series of short -distance trips. These tables show the share of each 0-D pair in entire SCAG region. For example,15% of heavy duty truck trips in the SCAG region originate in Riverside County. Additionally, 7.3% of heavy duty truck trips and 10.4% of medium duty truck trips in the SCAG region start and end in Riverside County. This is reasonable because smaller trucks tends to travel shorter distances to perform multiple local deliveries. Page 28 302 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table 10. Heavy -Duty Truck O-D Distribution in SCAG Region O D Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Total Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Total I 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% _ 1% 0.0% 25.8% lil 2.0% LI 2.3% 1 6.0% 0.6% 37% 0.0% 0.1% I_ 2.1% 11 LI 2.4% 3.0% 0.5% 0.5% 7.3% _ 1.1% 0.1% 5.0% 0.1% z _ 7 ivi _ 15% 0.1% 6.3% [1 1.2% 5.1% 25.1%d 0.2% n 38% 0.0% I 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% I 1.0% 2% 1% 37% 7% 16% 37% 2% 100% Table 11. Medium -Duty Truck O-D Distribution in SCAG Region O �� Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Total Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Total I 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1% 0.0% 46.1% II I 2.2% I 0.7% D 1.6% 0.7% 51% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% M 2.2% 0.7% D 1.6% 0.7% 13.0% 0.5% I 0.4% 0.0% I I 0.5% I 10.4% 1.6% 0.0% D 0.4% 1.6% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 16% 13% 13% 5% 1% 51% 16% 13% 13% 5% 100% Trips between zones for medium- and heavy-duty trucks are shown on Table 12 and Table 13, respectively. For medium trucks, all 20 of the 0-D pairs with the highest number of trips are the same zone (namely, short trips remaining within the same zone). The more frequent trip between two different zones is from Zone 14 to 21(adjacent zones in the desert), which accounts for 31 % of the traffic originating from Zone 14. The situation is similar for heavy-duty trucks, where the 12 0-D pairs with the highest number of trips are the same zone. The most frequent trip between Zone 1(northwestern Riverside County) and Zone 30 (southwestern San Bernardino County), accounting for 26% of trips from Zone 1. Beyond this, the most frequent trips are from Zone 17 to Zone 30 and from Zone 19 to Zone 31(both 25 % of trips originating from those respective links). Page 29 303 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions The distribution of trips on 29 selected segments of the highway network in Riverside County were also investigated. This analysis used a sample of GPS truck trip trajectories to understand the origin -destination of trips on a given facility. In this analysis, intermediate stops are included and counted as separate trips since these trips will contribute to congestion on local streets. Table 14 shows the share of truck trips generated in Riverside County compared to the share of truck trips generated in SCAG area from the total truck traffic on each of the links. For heavy-duty trucks, Riverside County generated the most traffic on Links 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23.Of these links, three are located on SR-60, two are located on I-215, and one is located on SR-91.Overall, Riverside is a comparatively bigger generator of medium -duty truck trips, although the busiest links are similar: Links 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Of these, three are on I-215, two are on SR-60, and two are on SR-91. The patterns identified by these data are particularly useful for validating and refining other data sources as the basis for determining the fair share of trips generated by warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County compared to those trips (or the portion of trips) generated by uses outside of the county. Page 30 304 305 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table 12. Distribution of Trips by Zone for Medium -Duty Trucks (% by Destination) 18 2 4 4 1 1 6 3 1 1 3 1 3 2 7 21 11 1 100 2 21 5 15 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 5 5 1 2 1 4 8 10 2 100 1 51 6 4 1 2 3 1 2 2 8 7 3 1 100 2 5 11 36 2 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 1 5 7 5 100 15 4 30 2 1 5 11 1 1 2 2 8 5 3 100 1 3 7 3 29 6 5 10 4 5 1 2 1 4 7 4 2 100 2 2 7 4 34 2 3 3 2 2 1 7 1 1 1 3 9 8 1 100 1 4 2 4 2 23 6 8 2 2 6 2 2 5 4 4 2 2 2 7 7 100 2 4 2 3 53 6 7 3 1 1 2 4 3 100 4 2 5 5 3 9 33 15 1 1 2 1 4 4 3 1 100 3 2 5 1 4 7 60 3 3 2 100 1 2 1 3 1 1 45 7 4 2 2 1 1 7 11 1 100 3 61 24 1 1 3 100 2 6 7 25 2 31 12 1 2 2 3 100 5 3 6 50 10 14 3 1 1 2 2 4 100 1 2 9 76 2 2 1 2 100 17 8 13 5 1 1 1 22 1 1 2 3 2 2 6 20 5 1 100 18 10 5 5 11 1 2 1 1 1 3 11 3 2 2 1 2 2 5 14 11 1 100 19 2 6 4 9 1 4 1 2 2 2 13 3 1 2 2 3 2 4 10 19 3 100 20 2 4 4 10 1 5 12 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 17 1 1 2 1 4 8 9 1 100 21 2 25 2 1 60 1 1 2 100 1 92 2 100 50 9 9 5 12 3 6 2 100 5 77 6 3 2 1 1 2 100 9 11 62 1 10 1 2 2 100 8 9 2 51 4 2 7 11 2 100 9 3 7 2 61 8 7 1 100 7 2 3 3 27 47 5 2 100 1 3 1 1 2 5 80 2 100 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 8 2 1 5 51 10 3 100 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 17 53 4 100 1 2 1 1 5 4 78 100 7 4 84 100 Values less than 1 % are not shown in the table. Page 31 306 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table 13. Distribution of Trips by Zone for Heavy -Duty Trucks (% by Destination) -MIMI& rib Mi. 100, 11 2 3 5 1 1 6 3 7 3 2 4 26 12 5 7 7 2 2 4 7 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 9 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 8 13 4 100 4 1 20 2 2 1 2 3 1 7 2 4 5 2 9 17 7 3 100 4 4 6 15 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 2 4 4 2 6 16 10 5 100 12 9 22 1 1 5 6 2 2 2 1 1 5 16 7 4 100 8 1 15 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 4 3 3 1 3 15 13 6 100 10 2 5 14 2 1 1 4 1 2 5 2 2 3 3 1 2 14 14 6 100 5 2 1 1 2 6 5 1 7 5 2 8 4 1 3 4 2 6 6 1 6 8 6 2 100 3 1 2 4 4 23 3 3 5 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 13 13 3 100 10 2 1 2 9 5 1 3 13 9 1 1 2 6 1 2 2 9 12 4 100 4 3 6 3 3 25 1 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 15 12 4 100 3 16 8 4 5 1 1 7 2 3 3 4 3 1 3 12 13 4 100 2 10 15 6 7 1 10 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 10 12 4 100 4 9 7 12 12 19 3 1 7 12 4 100 4 6 8 17 17 1 11 2 2 2 2 1 2 9 8 2 100 2 5 6 12 29 9 2 2 2 3 2 1 9 7 3 100 12 1 1 1 13 2 1 2 4 4 6 3 2 4 25 8 5 100 L 9 2 2 3 7 2 2 7 4 6 3 1 4 16 19 7 100 6 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 13 4 3 4 4 2 3 14 25 5 1 100 7 3 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 13 3 4 4 3 1 4 17 12 4 2 100 3 1 7 11 8 9 15 3 3 4 3 2 1 2 9 10 2 100 1 2 4 2 5 69 1 1 3 4 2 100 1 38 8 2 9 11 5 5 10 3 3 1 100 1 11 44 3 7 5 2 3 9 4 3 4 100 ill17 14 30 3 14 4 3 4 2 6 100 3 1 11 6 29 5 3 6 20 5 4 100 1 15 4 2 6 32 12 9 8 2 3 100 8 2 5 14 51 4 7 3 100 2 1 1 8 3 6 9 4 45 10 3 3 100 5 2 5 4 7 3 3 4 41 11 6 100 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 4 2 3 18 36 10 100 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 9 7 65 100 5 15 3 3 3 1 2 4 2 2 54 100 Values less than 1 % are not shown in the table. Page 32 307 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table 14. Share of Each Region from the Truck Traffic by Link State Route No. 74 91 71 60 15 215 10 62 15 79 86 111 78 10 95 177 60 60 215 60 91 91 215 215 15 215 10 10 10 Link 1 2 3 Riverside 4 5 6 7 8 91 10I 11 12 13 14 _ 15 ❑ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Heavy -Duty Trucks Medium -Duty Trucks SCAG Riverside 21% _II IM L 26% 21% % 22% 18% 34% 33% 4% 28% 1% I 2% I 6% 27% % % IMM 1% 32% 21% 0% 13% 26% 55 % 55 % 52% 45 % 44 % 43 % 48 % 26% 26% 18% 43 % 41% 32% o % 43 % 0% 32% 53% �8% % % • 3% 36% 37% 26% 72 % 62 % 41% 40 % 37% 28% 26% 25 % 39% 41% 42 % 1% 7% 32% 31% 23% 0% 23% 41% 61% 65 % 60 % 52% 62% 63 % 66% 66% 56% 55 % 55 % 63 % 33 % SCAG 99 % 98% 93% 95% 92% 94 % 85% 98 % 1% 15% 85% 88 % 47 % 0% 40 % 61% 88 % 91% 92% 96% 984 972 86% 9% .011=174% 61% l t 1 0 i 39% Page 33 308 309 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions narcl Simi Valley Thous 25 Santa Clarity Pal and al e 24 Angel,- N� Figure 14. Zones Used in the O-D Analysis Bars -tow Victorville San Bernardino _ Natr-inal _ Rrh • Fore -I Cu cam r Santa ' 31 lonica Lo-_, F25n • auih aak2�� 33,ge1 17 �4 20!7Crre� 27 28na rn Santa 3 fi 29 a _ 90 9 B an nI ng MarineCorps Agcc Tnrenrynlne Palms Joshua Tore I.b l �•: National Fre NF,. 12 -�. National Park C ath ed ra� 3 15 City Paw' nar Deserr2l Page 34 310 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 15. Selected Links for O-D Analysis cuc monya lummd lands mono 4- 7acaiPal •8 16 2]'e19ia 18 17 • 3 27 26 • rant.iet, • Select Links Santa RP .a'Sart. i- int 1.1, nt_ roc. Page 35 311 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 5. WAREHOUSE TRIP GENERATION METHODOLOGY There are many possible approaches to estimate the number and length of trips generated by warehouse -related establishments in a given area. In this section, the most relevant and defensible of the currently available studies and methodologies are summarized. The recommendations follow the inventory of options. 5.1. CITY OF FONTANATRUCK TRIP GENERATION STUDY This study was completed in 2003 to evaluate the vehicle trip generation characteristics of several land use categories that typically generate significant volumes of truck traffic in the City of Fontana. This study identifies nine types of truck trip generating land uses, three of which are relevant to this study, namely: light warehouse, heavy warehouse, and industrial park. Below are the definitions for the three most relevant types of land use from the study, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual: • Warehouse (ITE code 150) are primarily devoted to the storage materials; they may also include office and maintenance areas. o Light warehouses are 100,000 square feet gross floor area or less o Heavy warehouses are greater than 100,000 square feet gross floor area. • Industrial park (ITE code 130) are areas containing a number of industrial or related facilities. They are characterized by a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a wide variation in the proportion of each type of use. Many industrial parks contained highly diversified facilities, some with a large number of small businesses and others with one or two dominant industries. Table 15 summarizes trip generation rates presented in the Fontana study for the above uses. The distribution of truck mix for each warehouse type is also presented. Based on this study, light warehousing generates more truck trips relative to heavy warehousing per employee (for example: 0.327*13%=0.065 >0.309* 13%=0.04 during AM period) however the share of 3+ axles trucks are significantly higher for heavy warehousing Page 36 312 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table 15. Trip Generation Rates by Warehouse Type (Fontana Study) Wareho pe vg. tri rate pe mploye ploye Truck % 4+ les per uilding KSF per buildin KSF Light Warehouse Daily 3.713 1.659 0.45 23% 24.7 20.6 54.6 AM Site 0.327 0.146 20% PM Site 0.282 0.126 26% Heavy Warehouse Daily 4.657 3.547 0.76 11 16.95 22.71 60.34 AM Site 0.309 0.235 13% PM Site 0.417 0.318 10% Industrial Park Daily 2.485 1.236 0.5 26% 7.9 7.1 85 AM Site 0.265 0.132 20% PM Site 0.382 0.19 32% Source: Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study ;; Daily truck percentages are derived by averaging the AM and PM peak hour truck percentage. 5.2. HIGH -CUBE WAREHOUSE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) engaged ITE to conduct a high -cube warehouse vehicle trip generation analysis. The findings of this report are reflected in the most recent ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) published in September 2017. This study defines high -cube warehouse (HCW) as a: building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical high -cube warehouse has a high level of on - site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly - efficient processing of goods through the high -cube warehouse. For the purpose of the analysis, high -cube warehouses are grouped into five types: • Transload - usually pallet loads or larger handling products of manufacturers, wholesalers/distributors, or retailers with little or no storage durations • Short -Term Storage - products held on -site for a short time Page 37 313 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions • Cold Storage - permanent cold storage in at least part of the building • Fulfillment Center - storage and direct distribution of e-commerce product to end users • Parcel Hub - Transload function for a parcel delivery company This study describes the high -cube warehouse facilities in the context of existing ITE categories: "High -cube warehouses/distribution centers may be located in industrial parks or be free-standing. Intermodal truck terminal (Land Use 030), industrial park (Land Use 130), manufacturing (Land Use 140) and warehousing (Land Use 150) are related uses." A detailed description and comparison of each of the HCW categories regarding function, layout, building dimension, and level of automation is presented in the original report. The vehicle trip generation for daily, AM and PM peak period and share of truck trip generation are estimated for the above categories of high -cube warehouse, and these data represent the most comprehensive effort to assess trip generation associated with high -cube warehouse to date thereby providing useful information to help validate other data sources. However, the study includes the following caveats related to the data and analyses contained within the report: • Since the sample size for fulfilment center and parcel hub include only one establishment, the study recommends further data collection (a minimum of at least six sites) for these two categories to derive stable trip generation rates. • The study produce statistically acceptable results based on limited data (nine sites) for cold storage category, which is generally higher than the rates developed previously based on an older data collection effort. The cold storage sites are classified subjectively based on the interpretation of the data submitter. It is recommended to confirm the applicability of the cold storage category based on the proportion of the HCW building space devoted to the cold storage. If some of the facilities are reclassified, the analysis needs to be re-evaluated. Further data collection might be needed, if a total of at least six sites are not identified under this category after reclassification. • The study combined the transload and short-term storage categories for trip generation analysis. Although these categories are functionally different, their trip generation is not significantly different. Despite having relatively large sample size (95 sites) for this group, the study concluded that there is no meaningful statistic correlation between gross floor area and vehicle trip generation. It is recommended that an evaluation of further potential stratifications of the available data be undertaken and an appropriate set of data be selected for use as interim rates until further study is complete. For example, a set of 15 similar sites can be selected to Page 38 314 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions evaluate the consistency and correlation between the trip generation and one or more independent variables such as number of employment or floor area. Recognizing the above -mentioned cautions about the results of this study, the summary of this study is presented in the following tables. Table 16 shows the percentage of trucks from total vehicles by each high -cube warehouse category, and the findings reflect notable differences in the trip generation characteristics between certain use types. At Short -Term Storage, Transload & Cold Storage facilities, trucks represent approximately 30% of daily vehicle traffic, with disproportionately less of that traffic coming during AM and PM peak hours. At Parcel Hubs, trucks represent almost half of the AM peak traffic, but only approximately 38% over the course of the day and just over 29% during the PM peak hour. Trucks account for only a small percentage of the total vehicle traffic at Fulfillment Centers. Table 16 shows the daily weighted truck trip generation rates for each high -cube warehouse category. Per square foot, Parcel Hubs generate the highest number of truck trips, but the highest proportion of truck trips are generated by Cold Storage facilities. This is also the case when only 5+-axle trucks are considered. Table 16. Trip Generation Rates by Warehouse Type (NAIOP Study) are ousedimi Type peri d Daily Avg trip rate per 1,000 GSF* 1.432 Truck % 32% Large Truck 2 3 4 Axlesill 48.7 Mix °. 5+ Axles 51.3 Short -Term Storage, Transload AM Site 0.082 29% 37.5 62.5 PM Site 0.108 21 % 56.5 43.5 Cold Storage Daily 2.115 40% 10.4 89.6 AM Site 0.103 37% 28.9 71.1 PM Site 0.129 33% 26.2 73.8 Fulfillment Center Daily 8.178 9% 66.2 33.8 AM Site 0.841 3% 60.9 39.1 PM Site 1.979 2% 62.9 37.1 Parcel Hub Daily 10.638 38% 75.5 24.5 AM Site 0.851 50% 90.3 9.7 PM Site 0.803 29% 96.2 3.8 Source: ACQMD, 2076, GSF: Gross Floor Area Page 39 315 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 5.3. INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS (ITE) TRIP GENERATION MANUAL The 9th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual provides trip generation rates for warehousing (150), mini -warehousing (151), high -cube warehousing (152), and wholesale market (860). Each land use code provides one or more methods for estimating the trips generated by a land use. For example, warehousing (150) provides two options: 1. Employee -based estimation for weekday 2. Area -based estimation for weekday The results of ITE's analysis for various uses in Riverside County are presented in Table 17. The ITE Trip Generation Manual provides the ability to estimate daily, AM peak, M peak, and weekend vehicle trips based on land use types, using independent variables of: floor area, acreage, or number of employees. 10th ITE Trip Generation Manual was released in September 2017. Since the new edition might not be adopted by RCTC yet, the trip generation rates from the 9th Edition is compared with respective rates from the 10th edition. The information contained in the High -Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis and the ITE Trip Generation Manuals will be particularly useful in determining the proportional impact and fair share fee for differing types of high cube warehousing uses not readily distinguishable in the data derived from other aggregated sources, like Census and the SCAG demographic forecasts. Page 40 316 317 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table 17. ITE Daily Trip Generation Rates for Industrial Land Use (Site Generators) Code Land Use Unit Daily Rate AM/PM Peak Daily Rate AM/PM Peak Truck % (9th Ed.) (9th Ed.) (10th Ed.) (10th Ed.) (9th Ed.) 110 120 130 140 150 151 General Light Industrial General Heavy Industrial Industrial Park Manufacturing Warehousing Mini -Warehouse Employees 3.02 0.48 / 0.51 KSF Gross Floor Area 6.97 1.01 / 1.08 Employees 0.82 KSF Gross Floor Area 1.5 Employees KSF Gross Floor Area 3.34 6.83 3.05 4.96 0.40 / 0.40 PM: 0.68 0.43 / 0.45 0.80 / 0.84 2.91 3.37 0.67 / 0.68 0.92 / 0.83 0.42 / 0.42 0.41 / 0.40 Employees 2.13 0.39 / 0.40 2.47 0.43 / 0.45 KSF Gross Floor Area 3.82 0.79 / 0.75 3.93 0.81 / 0.79 Employees 3.89 0.55 / 0.58 5.05 0.68 / 0.68 KSF Gross Floor Area 3.56 0.42 / 0.45 1.74 0.22 / 0.24 KSF Gross Floor Area 2.5 0.28 / 0.29 1.51 0.20 / 0.20 KSF Net Rentable Area 1.65 0.18 / 0.22 1.65 0.18 / 0.22 Storage Units 0.25 0.03 / 0.03 0.18* 0.23* / 0.24* Occupied storage units 0.2 0.02/0.02 0.19* 0.02* / 0.02* N/A N/A 13% N/A 20% 2%-15% 152** High -Cube Warehouse KSF Gross Floor Area 1.68 0.14 / 0.16 38% High -Cube Transload & Short- 154 Term Storage Warehouse KSF Gross Floor Area 1.40 0.12 / 0.16 155 156 157 High -Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse High -Cube Cold Storage Warehouse KSF Gross Floor Area KSF Gross Floor Area KSF Gross Floor Area 8.18 7.75 2.12 0.22 / 0.27 0.88 / 0.71 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Source:ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition * Figures given by 100s of units; divided by 100 for consistency with 9th Edition figures. ** In the loth Edition, Land Use Code 152 is replaced by Codes 154-157, which provide additional specificity. Page 41 318 319 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 5.4. SCAG H EAVY-DUTY TRUCK TRI P G EN ERATION (2016 RTP) SCAG's heavy-duty truck (HDT) model is a sub -model within the SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) model. The model classifies trucks into three HDT weight classes by gross vehicle weight (GVW): light -heavy (8,500 to 14,000 lbs. GVW); medium -heavy (14,001 to 33,000 lbs. GVW); and heavy -heavy (>33,000 lbs. GVW). The SCAG 2016 RTP HDT Model applies freight -related socioeconomic data to estimate trip generation using three submodules - external (to the region) trip generation, internal (to the region) trip generation, and special generator trip generation. • The external trip generation module estimates the internal -external (IE), external - internal (EI), and external -external (EE) truck trip table for all interregional truck trips based on commodity flow patterns that link Southern California with the rest of the country. The EI/IE HDT trips are generated using a combination of commodity flow data at the county level and 2-digit NAICS employment data at a county level. External cordons are used to forecast future year external HDT trips from the base year trip flow matrices. This module uses a TRANSEARCH database obtained from IHS/Global Insight. These data are provided as annual flows in tons and are converted to daily weekday flow using an annulation factor of 306 (6 days per week for 51 weeks) for all commodities. The flows are converted from tons to trucks using the specified payload factors varying by commodity types. These payload factors were developed using data from the 2002 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS). • The internal trip generation module is based on trip rates (number of trips per employee or household) for ten different land use/industry sectors at the trip ends. These land use/industry sectors are households, agriculture/mining/construction, retail, government, manufacturing, transportation/utility, general warehousing, high cube warehousing, wholesale, and other (service). The socioeconomic data used by the internal HDT model is consistent with those data used by broader regional travel demand model. The trip rates for every land use were updated based on recent data collection efforts - establishment surveys and third -party truck GPS data. Table 15 shows the trip generation rates for truck trips internal to the region. All trip rates are per employee, except for the warehouse category, for which trip rates are presented both per employee and KSF of area • Special generators include the ports and intermodal facilities. Not only major -purpose trips are included, but also secondary trips like cargo trips from intermediate handling locations to final destinations. Additionally, there are empty movements of trucks Page 42 320 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions associated with port truck trips, for purposes of truck repositioning. Ports are modeled based on detailed port area zone system and specialized trip generation rates for autos and trucks by type (bobtail, chassis, and containers). Intermodal truck trips are HDT movements generated at the six regional intermodal facilities in the SCAG region. Table 18. Internal Truck Trip Generation Coefficient for Various Land Use Categories Category Truck Type Light HDT Medium HDT Heavy HDT All Trucks Households 0.0147 0.0046 0.0072 0.0265 Agriculture/Mining/Construction 0.0804 0.0778 0.0715 0.2297 Retail 0.0663 0.0662 0.0703 0.2028 Government 0.0296 0.0150 0.0148 0.0594 Manufacturing 0.0613 0.0655 0.0924 0.2192 Transportation/Utility 0.1579 0.1815 0.3199 0.6593 Wholesale 0.0916 0.0968 0.1316 0.32 Other (Service) 0.0095 0.0111 0.0151 0.0357 General Warehouse per Employee 0.1610 0.1850 0.3720 0.718 General Warehouse per KSF of Area 0.2819 0.2434 0.5421 1.0674 High Cube Warehouse per Employee 0.184 High Cube Warehouse per KSF of Area 0.0948 0.211 0.372 0.767 0.1272 0.3380 0.56 Based on information in the SCAG HDT model, the ratio of employee per KSF for general warehouse and is presented in Table 19. Table 19. Employee per KSF Ratio in SCAG HDT model Employee per KSF Ratio Light HDT Medium HDT Heavy HDT Total Trip Rate Trip Rate Trip Rate Trucks General Warehouse High Cube Warehouse 1.75 1.32 1.94 1.66 1.46 4.52 1.10 4.70 The employee ratio in SCAG model seems very high compared to the ITE rates and the Fontana study. This issue was discussed with the SCAG modeling group who advised to only use the warehouse employee information from SCAG model since the 2016 RTP scenarios are based on employee variable and the warehouse square feet variable was not considered ready for use. For this reason, where necessary, employee per KSF conversion rates will be derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Page 43 321 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 5.5. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES Various approaches were reviewed in defining: 1) existing warehouse uses, 2) truck trip generation related to warehouse activities and 3) anticipated future warehouse growth in Riverside County. Although the equations used to estimate truck trips may differ significantly, a more important difference is the source of truck trips and the land use category that relates to each model. Unfortunately, these studies did not adopt a common definition of uses and with the rapid growth in automation in modern warehouses, the employee density may be declining while the related trucking activities may increase. However, in the absence of any other available information, the number of employee is still the primary variable to estimate trucking activities related to warehouse uses. For the purpose of this study effort, it is important to maintain the consistency between identified warehouse -related uses, their trip generation, and the future forecast of each use. Figure 16 shows the taxonomy of various uses with major warehouse activities. Figure 16. Taxonomy of Uses with Major Warehouse Activities Warehouse Activities in Related Uses Primary High -Cube Transload & Short -Term Fulfillment Center Cold Storage Parcel Hub Low -Cube Light Warehouse Heavy Warehouse Secondary — 1 Manufacturing Light Industry Heavy Industry Wholesale The studies that provide methods to estimate trip generation rates for various warehouse activities may aggregate some of these uses due to lack of information. Some methods are more conservative, choosing to include only heavy truck trip generators. Other methods take a more holistic approach, casting a broader net of trip types and weighting them for estimated Page 44 322 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions volume. No approach is inherently more correct than any other, but one may be more appropriate than others for a given purpose. A desire for precision would suggest dis-aggregating land use types to the greatest degree possible. For example, distinguishing between high -cube and low -cube. However, this only useful if there is a valid forecast in the growth of these uses at the dis-aggregated level. Furthermore, in the context of impact fee programs, the concept of "rough proportionality" has been determined to be adequate as the basis for establishing a rational nexus and associated fair share fee. For these reasons, the use of more reliable, aggregated data is considered preferable for this study effort, with cross-reference to supplemental data sources to address specific study needs. Table 20 is a summary of the trip generation data assessed in this report. These data represent the "universe" for trip generation for the purposes of this study effort, and elaborate the related land uses, available of data and applicability for study use. Table 20. Summary of Uses Related to Warehouse Activities and Trip Generation Methodologies Land use Category with Significant Warehouse Activity Trip Generation Reference Fontana Study SCAG RTP (2012 Base Year) SCAQM D SCAG Future Forecast (2040) Primary Warehouse Activity High -cube transload / short-term warehouse High -cube fulfillment center High -cube cold storage High -cube parcel hub Light warehouse* Heavy warehouse** Secondary Warehouse Activity Industrial park* Light industry (manufacturing) Heavy industry (manufacturing) Wholesale ✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓ = available but not suitable for primary study use J = available and suitable for supplemental reference,- ✓ = available and preferred for primary study use *: Light warehouse also includes "low -cube" as defined by SCAG but not the Fontana Study **: Heavy warehouse includes "high -cube" as defined by SCAG but not the Fontana Study Page 45 323 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Table 21 summarize the trip generation rates presented in this study. It is important to use this table properly and understand the assumptions related to each reference, since there are fundamental differences. Table 21. Summary Trip Generation Rates Related to Warehouse Activities and use Category with / Unit Per Employee Per 1,000 GSF Per Employee Per 1000 SF Per 1,000 GSF [2] (adjusted) per 1,000 GSF Per 1,000 GSF* imary arehous ctivity High -cube transload /short- term warehouse 0.725 0.767 0.560 0.384 0.454 0.444 High -cube fulfillment center 0.951 0.717 0.717 High -cube cold storage 0.836 0.75 High -cube parcel hub 4.007 2.918 Light/General warehouse 0.732 0.327 0.673 1.065 0.897 0.348 condary arehous ctivity Industrial park 1.173 0.583 - - - - 0.438 Light industry/ manufacturing 1.722 2.513 0.219 - - - 0.992 Heavy industry 1.469 2.926 - - - - Wholesale - - 0.32 - - - 0.302 [1] Source: SCAG Internal HDT Truck Model Development Report, 2012 [2] Assuming 2000 square feet per employee in High cube warehouse and 750 square feet per employee in general warehouse The SCAG HDT model is the only source that provides future forecast for warehousing uses. It provides aggregate level data for high -cube and low -cube warehouse uses, as well as data for secondary manufacturing and wholesale activities, and for consistency, it is the primary recommended data source for this study. Furthermore, the SCAG 2016 RTP model applies trip rates differentiated between general and high -cube warehouse and forecast truck trips from to land use types including general and high -cube warehouses. The rates presented in the Fontana study and most recent ITE manual (which incorporates findings from the SCAQMD study) provide supplemental information that can be used to modify the trip rates in the SCAG HDT model to provide further disaggregation of results, as needed. Page 46 324 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 6. DIAGNOSTIC TESTS OF SCAG MODEL Best practice for traffic forecasting includes, among other things, checking the traffic model to make sure that it provides reasonable forecasts for the specific area(s) under study. The forecasting model that was selected for this study is the model developed by SCAG for the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)3. This model was selected because it incorporates the current adopted transportation and land use plan (the 2016 RTP/SCS)4 and because it covers a sufficiently large geographic area to capture both ends of truck trips to and from logistics warehouses in Riverside County. The SCAG model was validated on a region -wide basis prior to its use for the RTP/SCS5. The diagnostic checks conducted for the current study pertained to the model's ability to accurate represent truck trips on freeways in Riverside County. This first test was to see whether the model replicated the distribution of truck trips based on origin and destinations within the county and in neighboring counties. Utilizing the 0-D data described previously, the model results were compared. Table 22 shows that the model replicates the distribution of truck trips derived from the 0-D data very closely. Table 22: Check of County -Level Truck Origin -Destination Distribution Trip Type O-D Survey 2016 SCAG Model Heavy Trucks Internal to Riverside County 47% 46% One trip -end in Riverside County 53% 54% Medium Trucks Internal to Riverside County 78% 80% One trip -end in Riverside County 22% 20% 3 SCAG Standard Disclaimer: "The following modeling analysis was performed by WSP based upon modeling information originally developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is not responsible for how the Model is applied or for any changes to the model scripts, model parameters, or model input data. The resulting modeling data does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG. SCAG shall not be held responsible for the modeling results and the content of the documentation." 4 Note that the current versions of the two other candidate models, namely RivTAM and the CVAG model, are both based on the (now superseded) 2012 RTP/SCS. 5 See: SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model and 2012 Model Validation, SCAG, March 2016 Page 47 325 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions The next check was to determine how well the model represented traffic flows on Riverside County freeways in the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 17 and Figure 18 compare the model's 2016 traffic volumes to counts of actual traffic taken from the Caltrans' Performance Measurement System (PeMS). The figures also show a shaded area that represents the allowable deviation based on Caltrans guidelines'. A model is considered generally valid if 75 of the points fall within the allowable deviation. Based on this criterion, the SCAG model is generally valid for Riverside Counties in both the AM peak period (77% within allowable deviation) and the PM peak hour (81%). The figures also show that the model tends to slightly over -estimate traffic, which is a tendency that can be corrected by factoring down the forecasts during post -processing. However, the results indicate a particularly acute overestimation for the traffic on SR-91. Subsequent investigation has determined anomalies in the PeMS data for these locations causing the appearance in the charts that the model is overestimating when in reality, the results are more likely in the same realm as other sampled locations. The next check was to see how well the SCAG model forecasts truck traffic on freeways in Riverside County, which is particularly relevant to determining the effectiveness of the model for use in this study effort. This test was performed by dividing the Riverside County freeway network into sections, as illustrated in Figure 19, and comparing the model's 2016 truck volumes on each section with Caltrans' truck volume data. Table 23 shows that the model generally does a good job of forecasting truck traffic on the study freeways. The only notable exceptions are for the sections of SR-60/I-215 and SR-91 within the City of Riverside, where the model is over -forecasting truck trips by about a factor of 3. Since the model matches the counts with regards to the percentage of trucks (see the right -most column in Table 23, the over -estimate of trucks in the vicinity of Riverside appears to be mainly due to the general over -estimation of trucks in that area, and is consistent with the over estimation of traffic in this area as described previously and illustrated in Figure 17 and Figure 18. Correcting the general over -forecast of traffic in the vicinity of the City of Riverside central business district should reduce the tendency to over -forecast trucks on those sections of the freeway system. With resolution of this apparent anomaly in the SCAG model, the overall findings of the diagnostic tests of the SCAG model indicate that, with some minor post - processing, it can provide very reasonable forecasts of traffic, and specifically truck traffic, on freeways in Riverside County, and therefore is suitable for use to support the subsequent study evaluation efforts. 6 Travel Forecasting Guidelines, Caltrans, November 1992 Page 48 326 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 17: Comparison of Model to Actual Traffic in the AM Peak Hour SCAG Model Volumes 13000 - 12000 - 11000 - 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 — 4000 - 3000 — 2000 — Overestimated 1000 • •• AM Peak Hour • • • • l • • • • • • Underestimated 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 PeMS • 1-15 • SR-60 • 1-215 • SR-91 • 1-10 Figure 18: Comparison of Model to Actual Traffic in the PM Peak Hour SCAG Model Volumes 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 PM Peak Hour Overestimated • Underestimated 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 PeMS • 1-15 • SR-60 • 1-215 • SR-91 • 1-10 Page 49 327 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Figure 19: Freeway Sections Used to Check Truck Forecasts Table 23: Comparison of Model's Truck Volumes to Counts of Actual Truck Traffic ID Route SCAG 2016 Model Daily Volumes AADT 2015 (Census) Counts Difference in Heavy Truck Percentage Total Vehicles Heavy Trucks Heavy Trucks % AADT 4+Axle AADT Heavy Truck % Difference Heavy Trucks Ratio 1&2 1-15 185,621 9,165 4.9% 151,000 9,082 6.0% 83 1.01 -1.1% 3&4 1-15 139,861 10,033 7.2% 117,000 5,762 4.9% 4,271 1.74 2.2% 7&8 1-15 197,698 9,092 4.6% 190,000 5,857 3.1% 3,235 1.55 1.5% 9&10 1-15 153,487 6,932 4.5% 159,000 6,226 3.9% 706 1.11 0.6% 13&14 SR-60/1-215 210,042 19,361 9.2% 170,000 5,367 3.2% 13,994 3.61 6.1% 15&16 SR 60 66,192 10,448 15.8% 61,000 6,929 11.4% 3,519 1.51 4.4% 17&18 1-215 189,324 7,187 3.8% 153,000 9,747 6.4% -2,560 0.74 -2.6% 19&20 1-215 121,827 5,590 4.6% 120,000 6,120 5.1% -530 0.91 -0.5% 23&24 SR-91 276,622 23,815 8.6% 247,000 8,040 3.3% 15,775 2.96 5.4% 25&26 SR-91 191,400 13,614 7.1% 209,000 8,036 3.8% 5,578 1.69 3.3% 27&28 1-10 109,361 9,708 8.9% 93,000 7,821 8.4% 1,887 1.24 0.5% 29&30 1-10 131,961 18,801 14.2% 118,000 16,844 14.3% 1,957 1.12 0.0% 31&32 1-10 96,719 16,418 17.0% 84,000 15,939 19.0% 479 1.03 -2.0% 33&34 1-10 30,654 10,415 34.0% 23,700 7,424 31.3% 2,991 1.40 2.6% Page 50 328 329 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions 7. DATA ADEQUACY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The objective of this technical memorandum is to present an overview of warehousing and logistics related development activity in Riverside County, and the availability of appropriate data to assess the impact of this development over time. This document is also intended to provide transparency in the study process by presenting background information regarding the range of data sources available to support the evaluation to be conducted in subsequent tasks. The review of available data has revealed that Riverside County can expect to see continued development of warehousing and logistics uses in the future, and that growth in warehousing and logistics uses, although focused in specific zones, will occur in cities across Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley, thereby likely generating impacts across the freeway system. Growth is expected to continue for both low -cube and high -cube warehousing and logistics uses supporting consideration of the impacts associated with the full range of associated development as part of this study, although it is anticipated that the rate of this type of development will decline over time as land availability is reduced for these uses. SCAG demographic forecasts are provided based on number of employees, although impact fees are most readily applied based on total building (or site) area. The SCAG forecasts follow the NAICS structure which includes several categories associated with warehousing and logistics uses. The NAICS breakdown of employment categories utilized by SCAG supports extraction of warehousing and logistics employment from other uses as the basis to estimate growth in warehousing and logistics use over time. And while the SCAG Warehouse Study information that is expected to incorporate information relating to the growth in building area of warehousing is not considered suitable for use at this time, the availability of various employee to building area ratios will support conversion of the SCAG growth forecasts into growth in building area for the purposes of determining a fee. Furthermore, the availability of trip generation rates for a range of differing warehouse and logistics use types (based on employees and building area) will support the ability to determine a fair share fee amount to reflect the differing levels of impact associated with a variety of different types of warehousing and logistics uses. A comparison of model outputs, 0-D study results and actual traffic counts indicates that the SCAG model does a good job of replicating existing truck travel patterns and traffic conditions on the Riverside County freeway system. Furthermore, anomalies in the model results appear to be explicable and able to be resolved with limited post processing of results. This finding Page 51 330 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions supports the use of the SCAG model as the primary evaluation tool for study evaluation, with supporting information able to be derived from a variety of other sources for validation and post processing of results to accomplish study needs. The assessment associated with this study task has determined that a range of adequate, suitable data is available to support the determination of impacts associated with warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County, and more specifically, the cost associated with mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of new warehousing and logistics development on the freeway system in Riverside County. The specific methodology for applying the various data sources to the study evaluation will be described in subsequent Technical Memoranda. In addition, these subsequent documents will present the study findings and results providing the framework for consideration to establish a regional logistics impact fee program. Page 52 331 ATTACHMENT 3 RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND REGIONAL LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Prepared for : RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Prepared by: In partnership with FEH R Jj' PEERS Revised: March 2018 333 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Table of Contents 1. I ntroduction 1 2. Adjusting the SCAG Model 1 3. Forecasting the Growth in Logistics in Riverside County 5 4. Results of New Model Runs 10 5. Next Steps 13 Table of Figures Exhibit 1: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Truck Percentages on Riverside County Freeways 2 Exhibit 2: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways3 Exhibit 3: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Volumes4 Exhibit 4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Adjusted Volumes 5 Exhibit 5: Steps Used to Forecast Logistics Growth 6 Exhibit 6: Caltrans Economic Forecast for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties 7 Exhibit 7: Caltrans Economic Forecast Transportation Employment Compared to the SCAG model's Transportation Employment Data for Riverside 8 Exhibit 8: The Proportion of Warehousing to Transportation Employment from the Riverside - San Bernardino -Ontario MSA 8 Exhibit 9: Extrapolated EDD to 2040 using the 2003 to 2016 trend for warehousing and other transportation employment 9 Exhibit 10: TAZs with Largest Warehousing/Logistics Growth 10 Exhibit 11: Existing Freeway Deficiencies in Western Riverside County 11 Exhibit 12: Future Freeway Deficiencies in Western Riverside County 11 Exhibit 13: New Logistics Trucks on Freeways in Western Riverside County 12 Exhibit 14: Examples of Attribution of 2040 Traffic Flow to Differing Sources 14 i 334 335 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts 1. INTRODUCTION This supplemental technical memorandum documents the modeling steps used to prepare the forecasts of freeway impacts arising from new logistics development in Riverside County, and presents the results of the model runs. The first section of this supplemental technical memorandum describes how the model was reviewed and calibrated to correct the problems reported in the earlier Technical Memorandum 11. The second section describes the methodology used to forecast the growth in logistics in Riverside County. This is followed by a section describing the results of the model runs used to identify the impacts of truck traffic arising from new logistics warehouses. The final section of this memo discusses next steps in the analysis process. 2. ADJUSTING THE SCAG MODEL Best industry practice requires that a regional travel demand model be adjusted and re- validated prior to using it for sub -regional studies: "Agencies that use MPO models for purposes other than regional planning should ensure that the model provides the appropriate scale and sensitivity for applications at a sub -regional level such as corridor, sub -area, or local planning studies. Below the regional level, model refinements are likely necessary to ensure the model meets the validation targets established in these guidelines and is appropriately sensitive to smaller scale changes associated with sub -regional studies." Source: California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, California Transportation Commission, 2010. Technical Memorandum 1 described a series of diagnostic tests that were performed on the SCAG model to test its validity for use to conduct technical evaluation as part of the RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee. The tests showed that the model represented truck traffic on Riverside County freeways well. For example, Exhibit 1 compares the percentage of trucks in the traffic on various freeways in the model versus the percentage in the Caltrans performance measurement system (PeMS) data, and Exhibit 2 shows a similar comparison for the truck volumes. The exhibits show a close correlation between the model and actual values, and no systemic tendency towards over- or under -estimating the truck percentage. 1 See the discussion of diagnostic tests of the SCAG model in Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions, WSP, October 2017 1 336 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 1: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Truck Percentages on Riverside County Freeways SCAG Model Volumes 40.0 % Overestimated 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0 % 5.0% 0.0% Underestimated 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Tra ffi c Census 40.0% • 1-15 •SR60 • 1-215 • S R-91 • 1-10 Data sources: SCAG 2016 RTP Travel Demand Model; Caltrans Freeway Performance Monitoring System (PeMS) 2 337 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 2: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways 30,000 25,000 20,000 E 0 a 15, 000 0 Q v 10,000 5, 000 0 Overestimated • 5,000 Heavy Trucks 10,030 • • 15,000 Traffic Census 20,CCC • Underestimated 25.0C: 30,000 • I-15 •SR 60 •I-215 •SR-91 • I-10 Data sources: SCAG 2016 RTP Travel Demand Model; Caltrans Freeway Performance Monitoring System (PeMS) However, the tests also revealed that there was an issue warranting adjustment. Exhibit 3 shows link flows from a SCAG model run for 2016 compared to PeMS data for the same year. This data was evaluated two ways, namely: • The shaded area in Exhibit 3 shows the allowable deviation based on Caltrans guidelines. The allowable deviation reflects the fact that the actual traffic volumes on roads fluctuate from day to day, so the "normal" traffic volume that a model should replicate is a range rather than a fixed value. A model is considered generally valid if 75% of the points fall within the allowable deviation. In this case 77% of the sites are within the allowable range in the AM peak hour and 81% in the PM peak hour, so the model passes this test of validity. • The second test was to see whether there a general tendency for the model to over- estimate or under -estimate freeway volumes on freeways in Riverside County. The exhibit shows that the model failed this test demonstrating a tendency to over- estimate freeway traffic, as illustrated by the fact the points nearly all fall above the equilibrium line which crosses diagonally through the middle of the exhibits, with an average over -estimation of 26% in the AM peak hour and 20% in the PM peak hour. 3 338 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 3: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Volumes SCAG Model Volumes 13000 12000 • 11000 10000 9000 8000 2000 6000 5000 .00 3000 2000 1000 0 0 Overestimated AM Peak Hour • • • • • • • ••• • • • • Underestimated 1000 2000 3000 0000 5000 6000 7000 8000 PeMS 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 • 1-15 •5R-60 • 1-215 •SR-91 • 1-10 SCAG Model Volumes PM Peak Hour 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 PeMS • 1-15 • SR-60 • I-215 • SR-91 • I-10 Data sources: SCAG 2016 RTP Travel Demand Model; Caltrans Freeway Performance Monitoring System (PeMS) Both the AM and PM peak hour overestimates can be reduced by factoring down model volumes in a post -model adjustment. Note that only car volumes were factored down, not truck volumes, because Exhibit 2 showed that the truck volumes were not in error. Exhibit 4 shows the results after applying the factors of 0.74 and 0.80 in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. The accuracy of the forecasts was much improved by these adjustments, with the R-squared2 value increasing from 0.15 to 0.79 in the AM peak hour and from 0.53 to 0.84 in the PM peak hour. The factoring down of the model forecasts to correct for the overestimation of car volumes by the model is important in the context of the study to ensure both existing and future deficiencies on the freeway network are not being overstated. 2 R-squared is a measure of how well the forecast accounts for variations in the traffic counts. R-squared values can range from 0.00, indicating no relationship between the model values and the counts, to 1.00, indicating that the model accounts fully for variation in the count data set. 4 339 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Adjusted Volumes SCAG Model Volumes 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 AM Peak Hour Adjusted 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 PeMS • 1-15 •SR-60 • 1-215 •SR-91 • 1-10 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Overestimated • PM Peak Hour Adjusted • M • • • • Underestimated 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 PeMS Data sources: SCAG 2016 RTP Travel Demand Model (adjusted volumes); Caltrans Freeway Performance Monitoring System (PeMS) • 1-15 •SR-60 •1-215 •SR-91 •1-10 3. FORECASTING THE GROWTH IN LOGISTICS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY The steps used to forecast for the growth in logistics in Riverside County are illustrated in Exhibit 5. The steps in the process are described in the following section. The data sources recommended as the basis to accomplish these steps was previously described in Technical Memorandum 1. 1. The starting point for forecasting logistics growth in Riverside County was the adopted SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. The SCS included a number of employment categories, of which the most relevant for this study is Transportation and Warehousing (corresponding to NAICS code 48-49). Warehousing employment (NAILS subcategory code 493) is included within this broad category, along with such things as air and rail transportation, trucking, transit, pipeline, and postal service jobs. The SCS data was obtained from SCAG in the form of socio-economic data (SED) inputs for the latest SCAG model (v6.3). 2. The growth in jobs in the Transportation and Warehousing category was derived as the difference in the employment figures for 2016 and 2040. 5 340 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 5: Steps Used to Forecast Logistics Growth Caltrans Forecast for Trans & Utilities Jobs EDD Warehouse as % of Transportation & Utilities Jobs Historic Trends SCAG Model % of Warehouse Growth by TAZ 1 2016 T&U Employmt SCAG 2040 SCS Transportation & Utilities Employment C Growth in T&U Jobs in Riverside County Yes • Growth in Warehouse Jobs in Riverside County Yes Growth in Warehouse Jobs in Riverside Co. by Key OReference to Description in Text Key Inputs Intermediate Step 3. Caltrans' Transportation Economics Branch provides annual county -level projections of employment by 2-digit NAICS industry categories out to 2050'. Their forecast is shown in Exhibit 6. This was compared to the forecast from the adopted SCAG SCS as a reasonableness check. As can be seen in Exhibit 7, the two forecasts are reasonably consistent. The SCS forecast is a little lower in magnitude than the Caltrans' forecast, making it a more conservative basis for a fee program'. 4. Next, the growth in employment in the warehouse sub -category needed to be separated out from the growth of the broader Transportation and Warehousing category. The best available data for accomplishing this comes from the California Employment Development Department (EDD). EDD collects data on employment by detailed NAICS industries, but only at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 3 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic.html 4 The Mitigation Fee Act prohibits agencies from over -charging a fee, but not under -charging (in most cases an agency is not required to charge any fee at all). For fee studies it is important not to overstate impacts. This is different from studies done pursuant to CEQA, where it is important not to understate impacts. 6 341 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts geography. Moreover, EDD does not include long-term forecasts. Therefore, the EDD historical data for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA extrapolated into the future based on the continuation of historical trend. The proportion of Transportation and Warehouse employment that is in the warehousing sub -category was computed (see Exhibit 8) to observe the historical trend. As seen in Exhibit 8, 2003 marks an inflection point where the rate of growth in warehousing increases relative to the growth of transportation employment as a whole. Therefore, the post-2003 trend was used to extrapolate from 2016 to 2040 for both for the warehousing sub -category and the rest of Transportation sub -categories. Exhibit 6: Caltrans Economic Forecast for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Transportation Employment: Caltrans Economic Forecast by County Historical Forecast O N • l0 00 O N • l0 00 O N ▪ lD 00 O N • l0 00 O O O O O O N N N N M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Riverside County San Bernardino County 7 342 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 7: Caltrans Economic Forecast Transportation Employment Compared to the SCAG model's Transportation Employment Data for Riverside 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Transportation Employment: Caltrans Economic Forecast vs SCAG Model [Riverside County] ••••••••••••••••••MI • •••• • •• ■ • •• 10,000 •••• • ■• •S•••• 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 ■ SCAG Model SED Caltrans Economic Forecast Exhibit 8: The Proportion of Warehousing to Transportation Employment from the Riverside - San Bernardino -Ontario MSA 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of Transportation Employment (NAI CS 43) in Warehousing (NAI CS 43-493) [Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA] 0 ,-I N m di- L.f) l0 I� 00 01 0 r-1 N CO Cr L.II l0 I, 00 Q) 0 %-1 N m Cr ill 1.0 Q) rn Q) rn Q) rn Q) rn 01 Ql 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,-I ,-I %--1 ,-I i--I % -1 i--I 0) of 0) of 0) of 0) of 0) 0l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,--1 , -1 ,--1 , -1 ,--1 , -1 %--1 , -1 , -1 %--I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 8 343 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts 5. As a reasonableness check, the growth in warehouse jobs and non -warehouse jobs in the Transportation and Warehouse category were compared to historic trends. As can be seen in 6. , the forecasts produced by steps 1 through 4 appear to be reasonable in light of the best available data, and generally reflect a continuation of recent historical trends. Exhibit 9: Extrapolated EDD to 2040 using the 2003 to 2016 trend for warehousing and other transportation employment 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 EDD Warehouse and other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends [Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA] Historical Forecast O N lD CO O (NI lD 00 O N lD 00 O N l0 00 O N lD 00 O 01 01 01 01 01 O O O O O c-I c I ci ci c-I N N N N N CO CO CO CO M d' 01 01 01 01 01 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Warehouse Non -Warehouse 7. Steps 1 through 5 produced a control total for the growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County, but contain no information about where in the county the jobs would be located. The best available data for the distribution of growth among the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) comes from a study currently underway by SCAG, some products of which are available for modeling purposes5. Exhibit 10 shows the TAZs with the highest warehousing growth in the SCAG model SED. The large majority of growth is associated with the World Logistics Center —this TAZ contains 91% of the growth shown for the county at the time the SED was developed. Another 3 % of the projected growth is reflected in a TAZ encompassing the western portion of the March Joint Powers Authority UPA) March Air Force Base Reuse Plan. Three additional TAZ's each show 1% of the forecast growth in warehousing, while six additional TAZs each show warehousing growth of less than 1%. The control total from Step 5 was multiplied by the percentage of growth for each TAZ to produce the forecast of the growth in warehouse employment by TAZ. 5 The on -going SCAG study also produced some forecasts of warehouse jobs by TAZ, but the SCAG team stated that these were very preliminary and recommended that they not be used for the current nexus study. 9 344 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 10: TAZs with Largest Warehousing/Logistics Growth 4. RESULTS OF NEW MODEL RUNS Once the model was prepared as described in the previous sections, new model runs were performed to forecast various traffic performance measures including the volume -to -capacity V/C ratio for each portion of the freeway network in Riverside County. The V/C ratio was computed using the passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors' embedded in the model. The Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) sets a target LOS of "E" (V/C ratio no greater than 0.99) for freeways, so any segment with a V/C ratio equal to or greater than 1.00 is considered deficient as defined by the CMP. Exhibit 11 plots the existing freeway V/C ratios geographically. There are three current deficiencies as illustrated: I-15 in the_]urupa Valley, I-215 between downtown Riverside and Moreno Valley, and SR-91 through Corona. It should be noted that in many cases the extents of congestion drivers experience is exacerbated by queuing from downstream segments where deficiencies are observed (i.e. the bottlenecks identified by the model). Exhibit 12 illustrates the impact of 2040 travel demands on the existing freeway network with no additional capacity improvements. The deficiencies shown in Exhibit 11 worsen and an additional three deficiencies are identified. Both plots only show Western Riverside County because no deficiencies were observed on freeways elsewhere in Riverside. 6 PCE factors are used to account for the difference in size, speed, and maneuverability between different classes of vehicles, including the effect of slopes on the operating characteristics of trucks. 10 345 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 11: Existing Freeway Deficiencies in Western Riverside County � 1:1 11 11 A1.r11,1111 imam JM• 1 � • 1-215 between Riverside & Moreno Valley Existing Max VIC — Loa than os 0.81,309 0.91010 Exhibit 12: Future Freeway Deficiencies in Western Riverside County Ne Deficiencie 11 346 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 13 shows the relative growth in truck traffic due to new logistics, with the bandwidth being proportional to the increased volume. The largest flows of trucks are forecast to come from truck traffic to and from the proposed World Logistics Center. The largest increases in truck flows would occur on SR-60 and 1-215 west of the World Logistics Center. However, truck traffic from new warehouses would contribute to worsening traffic conditions at all of the deficient freeway sections previously identified in Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 12, and as indicated by the black ellipses in Exhibit 13 . Exhibit 13: New Logistics Trucks on Freeways in Western Riverside County 12 347 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts 5. N EXT STEPS Once the existing and future deficiencies were identified and the truck traffic arising from new logistics warehouses was forecast, the next step in the study process will be to determine how much of each future deficiency can be attributed to new truck trips from warehouses. Exhibit 14 shows that there are three possible situations in terms of the determining the relative share of future forecast traffic growth hat may be attributable to growth in warehousing in Riverside County: • Some freeway segments have an existing deficiency that will be worsened with the addition of traffic from new growth. SR-91 between Riverside and Corona and SR-60 in western Moreno Valley appear to fall into this category. In these cases, the percent of the deficiency attributable to new growth is the portion of the excess traffic (excess being the traffic above the capacity of the road) that arises from new growth rather from existing traffic. • The second case occurs when the existing traffic volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, but the addition of traffic from new growth creates a deficiency where none previously existed. 1-15 north of Corona and SR-60 in eastern Moreno Valley are two examples of this. In such cases 100% of the deficiency can be attributed to new development. • In the final situation, freeway volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, even when the traffic from new development is added in. In such cases there is no deficiency. No fee can be collected because no improvement is needed to mitigate the impacts of new growth. It should be noted that in all three examples, the proportion of traffic impacts associated with new warehousing development in Riverside County (illustrated in orange in the exhibit) is relatively small compared to the traffic impacts associated with all other growth (illustrated in blue in the exhibit). As such, the share of the cost of mitigation attributable to growth in warehousing in Riverside County must be commensurate with the relative share of the impact resulting from these uses. Determination of mitigation needs, costs and the relative share attributable to new warehousing in Riverside County will be the subject of the next technical memorandum. 13 348 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts Exhibit 14: Examples of Attribution of2040 Traffic Flow to Differing Sources Warehouse Growth Non -Warehouse Growth Existing 5C00 1C000 Components of 2040Traffic Flow Gro wt Wvrsei Existin I efi cien sR 91 SRio Riverside Western to Corona Moreno Valley ow h C eat e e cien ie 15North of Corona Existing Capacity can Handle Growth SR-60 1-215 Eastern North of Moreno Riverside Valley n Existing Traffic ■Other Growth ■ New Lcg istics Truc ks 14 349 ATTACHMENT 4 RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND REGIONAL LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE Technical Memorandum: Task 2 - Funding and Cost Analysis Prepared for : RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Prepared by: In partnership with FEHO PEERS Revised: June 2018 351 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Identifying Capacity Deficiencies 1 2.1. Adjusting the SCAG Model 1 2.1.1. Model Validation 2 2.1.2. Forecasting the Growth in Logistics Employment in Riverside County 6 2.1.3. Model Post Processing 10 2.2. Identifying Deficiencies 11 3. Attributing Capacity Deficiencies to New Logistics Development 14 3.1. Percent Attributable to Future Development 14 3.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development 14 3.2.1. Tracking new logistics truck traffic in the SCAG model 14 3.2.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development 14 3.3. Identifying projects 15 4. Estimating Freeway Project Costs 19 4.1. Assessing Project Limits 19 4.2. Review of Currently Funded/Programmed Improvements 20 4.3. Development of Project Concepts 22 4.4. Project Cost Estimating 22 5. Funding Sources and Funding Gap 27 5.1. Riverside County Strategic Assessment 27 5.2. Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 30 5.2.1. Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects 30 5.2.2. Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program 31 5.2.3. Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program 32 5.2.4. FAST Act Funding Implications for RCTC 33 5.3. Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) 33 5.3.1. Trade Corridor Enhancement Program 33 352 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 5.3.2. Solutions for Congested Corridors Program 34 5.3.3. Local Partnership Program 35 5.3.4. SB1 Funding Implications for RCTC 35 5.4. Summary of Available Funding from All Sources 36 6. Funding Gap Analysis 40 7. Appendices 41 Appendix A — Capacity Improvement Concept Plans A-1 Appendix B — Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables B-1 ii 353 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis List of Figures Figure 2-1: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Percentages on Riverside County Freeways 3 Figure 2-2: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways 3 Figure 2-3: AM and PM Peal< Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Volumes 4 Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Adjusted Volumes 5 Figure 2-5: Steps Used to Forecast Logistics Growth 6 Figure 2-6: Caltrans Economic Forecast for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties 8 Figure 2-7: Caltrans Economic Forecast Transportation Employment Compared to the SCAG model's Transportation Employment Data for Riverside 8 Figure 2-8: The Proportion of Warehousing to Transportation Employment from the Riverside - San Bernardino -Ontario MSA 9 Figure 2-9: Extrapolated EDD to 2040 Using the 2003 to 2016 Trend for Warehousing and Other Transportation Employment 9 Figure 2-10: TAZs with Largest Warehousing/Logistics Growth in Riverside County 10 Figure 2-11: Existing Deficiencies in Riverside County during the AM Peak Hour 12 Figure 2-12: Future Deficiencies in Riverside County during the AM Peak Hour 12 Figure 2-13: Existing Deficiencies in Riverside County during the PM Peak Hour 13 Figure 2-14: Future Deficiencies in Riverside County during the PM Peak Hour 13 Figure 3-1: New Logistics Trucks in western Riverside County 15 Figure 3-2: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity 17 Figure 3-3: Deficient Segment Location Map 18 354 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis List of Tables Table 3-1: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable 16 Table 4-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects 19 Table 4-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program 21 Table 4-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates 26 Table 5-1: Freeway Funding Program, Amount (in millions) and Risk 29 Table 5-2: Projected Annual RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions) 33 Table 5-3: Projected Annual SB1 Funding for RCTC (in millions) 36 Table 5-4: Freeway Project Funding from New Sources 2017-2040 (in millions) 37 Table 5-5: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions) 37 Table 5-6: Projected RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funds without SB1, 2017-2040 (millions) 38 Table 5-7: Projected RCTC Funding with and without SB1, 2017-2040 (in millions) 39 355 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 1. INTRODUCTION The statutory requirements and legal precedents relating to the imposition of impact fees mandate developing a fully fundable program to ensure that the revenues collected are proportional, adequate and can be spent in a reasonable amount of time to effectively mitigate the resulting impacts. Accomplishing the funding and cost analysis task represents a series of critical steps in the nexus process to identify other available funding sources that will contribute to mitigating the impacts of logistics facilities and other development in the County. This includes quantifying the costs of addressing existing deficiencies in highway infrastructure, the costs to address impacts resulting from other development activities not attributable to the warehousing and logistics sector, and the cost to address the impacts of pass through trips, including goods movement. Additionally, this task will need to establish a program of projects that can be implemented to effectively mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new logistics related developments and to satisfy requirements for timely revenue expenditure. The various steps of the nexus development process that contribute to accomplishing this task are summarized as follows. This effort starts by using the traffic data outputs of the prior task to identify capacity deficiencies in the highway network, then determining the proportion of those deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics related development. The resultant information can then be cross-referenced with project cost information to determine the overall cost of mitigating freight impacts as the basis for estimating a fee. 2. IDENTIFYING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES A primary step in the process of determining the basis for any impact fee program is identifying the extent of the impact that will result from new development activity. For the purposes of this study, the SCAG regional travel demand model was the primary tool used for identifying existing and future capacity deficiencies and determining attribution of deficiencies to new logistics truckingl. A modified SCAG model was run for existing (2016) and future with no improvement (2040) conditions. Model outputs were processed to identify deficiencies and percent attributable to new logistics trucking, as described in the following sections. 2.1. ADJUSTING THE SCAG MODEL The SCAG Model's 2016 scenario year network was used for all model runs with the 2016 and 2040 socio-economic data providing the basis for the demand inputs. These model files were from the version of the SCAG model used to develop the 2016 RTP/SCS. In accordance with best industry practice, some adjustments were made to improve the accuracy of the model 1 The following model analysis was performed by WSP based upon modeling information originally developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is not responsible for how the model is applied or for any changes to the model scripts, model parameters, or model input data. The resulting modelling data does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG. SCAG shall not be held responsible for the modeling results and the content of the documentation. 1 356 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis with respect to freeways in Riverside County. These adjustments are described in an earlier technical memorandum2. 2.1.1. Model Validation Best industry practice requires that a regional model be adjusted and re -validated prior to using it for sub -regional studies: "Agencies that use MPO models for purposes other than regional planning should ensure that the model provides the appropriate scale and sensitivity for applications at a sub -regional level such as corridor, sub -area, or local planning studies. Below the regional level, model refinements are likely necessary to ensure the model meets the validation targets established in these guidelines and is appropriately sensitive to smaller scale changes associated with sub -regional studies. "From 2070 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, California Transportation Commission. The previous technical memorandum described a series of diagnostic tests that the study team performed on the SCAG model to test its validity for use in a freeway impact fee nexus study. The tests showed that the model represented truck traffic on Riverside County freeways well. For example, Figure 2-1 compares the percentage of trucks in the traffic on various freeways in the model versus the percentage in the Caltrans performance measurement system (PeMS) data, and Figure 2-2 shows a similar comparison for truck volumes. There is a close correlation between the model and actual values, and no systemic tendency towards over- or under- estimating the truck percentage. 2 See the discussion of diagnostic tests of the SCAG model in Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions, WSP, July 2017 357 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% l'! S ✓• 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Tra ffi c Counts Overestimated • • • Underestimated 40.0% • 1-15 •SR 60 • 1-215 •5R-91 • 1-10 Figure 2-1: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Percentages on Riverside County Freeways 30,000 Overestimated 25,000 20,000 10,000 5,000 • • • 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Traffic Counts • Underestimated 25,000 30,000 •1-15 •SR 60 •1-215 •SR-91 •I-10 Figure 2-2: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways 3 358 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis However, the tests also revealed that there was an issue warranting adjustment. Figure 2-3 shows link flows from a SCAG model run for 2016 compared to PeMS data for the same year. This data was evaluated two ways, namely: • The shaded areas in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 show the allowable deviation based on Caltrans guidelines. The allowable deviation reflects the fact that the actual traffic volumes on roads fluctuate from day to day, so the "normal" traffic volume that a model should replicate is a range rather than a fixed value. A model is considered generally valid if 75% of the points fall within the allowable deviation. In this case 77% of the sites are within the allowable range in the AM peak hour and 86% in the PM peak hour, so the model passes this test of validity. • The second test was to see whether there was a general tendency for the model to over- estimate or under -estimate freeway volumes on freeways in Riverside County. Figure 2-3 shows that the model failed this test; over -estimating traffic on Riverside County freeways by an average of 26% in the AM peak hour and 20% in the PM peak hour. 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 E 2000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 a AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 13000 12000 Overestimated Overestimated 1100o • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • •• • • •1-1S •SR-60 • 1-215 •SR-91 •1-10 10000 9000 E ^ 8000 j 7000 6000 g 5000 4000 3000 • • •• • • • • • • ; a• 2000 Underestimated Underestimated loon • 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 .00 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 0 1000 2000 3000 .00 5000 6000 2000 8000 9000 30000 11000 12000 13000 PeMS PeMS •1-15 •5R-60 •1-21S •SR-91 • 1-10 Figure 2-3: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Volumes The model overestimation can be reduced by factoring down model volumes in a post -model adjustment. Only car volumes were factored down, not truck volumes, because truck volumes did not show the same trend (see Figure 2-2). Figure 2-4 shows the results after applying factors of 0.74 and 0.80 in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively. After adjustments, the R-squared3 value increased from 0.11 to 0.79 in the AM peak hour and from 0.51 to 0.84 in the PM peak hour. 3 R-squared is a measure of how well the forecast accounts for variations in the traffic counts. R-squared values can range from 0.00, indicating no relationship between the model values and the counts, to too, indicating that the model accounts for all variation in the count data set. 4 359 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis AM Peak Hour Adjusted 13000 12000 11000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 3000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 PeMS PM Peak Hour Adjusted Overestimated 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 • Underestimated 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 PeMS •1-15 •5a-60 •1-215 •5a-91 •1-10 Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Adjusted Volumes 5 360 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 2.1.2. Forecasting the Growth in Logistics Employment in Riverside County The steps used to forecast for the growth in logistics in Riverside County are outline in Figure 2-5 below. Caltrans Forecast for Trans & Utilities Jobs EDD Warehouse as % of Transportation & Utilities Jobs Historic Trends SCAG Model % of Warehouse Growth by TAZ SCAG 2040 SCS Transportation & Utilities Employment Growth in T&U Jobs in Riverside County Yes • Growth in Warehouse Jobs in Riverside County Yes Growth in Warehouse Jobs in Riverside Co. by Kev OReference to Description in Text Key Inputs Intermediate Step Figure 2-5: Steps Used to Forecast Logistics Growth The steps in the process were: 1) The starting point for forecasting logistics growth in Riverside County was the adopted SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. The SCS socio-economic data (SED) included several employment categories, of which the most relevant for this study is Transportation and Warehousing (corresponding to NAICS code 48-49). Warehousing employment (NAICS subcategory code 493) is included within this category, along with other types of employment such as air and rail transportation, trucking, transit, pipeline, and postal service. The SCS data was obtained from SCAG in the form of SED inputs for the latest SCAG model (v6.3). 6 361 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 2) The growth in jobs in the Transportation and Warehousing category was derived as the difference in the employment figures for 2016 and 2040. 3) Caltrans' Transportation Economics Branch provides annual county -level projections of employment by 2-digit NAICS industry categories out to 20504. Their forecast is shown in Figure 2-6. This was compared to the forecast from the adopted SCS as a reasonableness check. As can be seen in Figure 2-7, the two forecasts are reasonably consistent. The SCS forecast is a little lower than the Caltrans' forecast, representing a more conservative forecast as the basis a fee programs. 4) Next, the growth in employment in the warehouse sub -category needed to be separated out from the growth of the broader Transportation and Warehousing category. The best data available for doing this comes from the California Employment Development Department (EDD). EDD collects data on employment by detailed NAICS industries, but only at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) geography. Moreover, EDD does not include long-term forecasts. Therefore, the EDD historical data for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA had to be extrapolated into the future. First, the proportion of Transportation and Warehouse employment that is in the warehousing sub -category was computed (see Figure 2-8) to observe the historical trend. As seen in Figure 2-8, 2003 marks an inflection point where the rate of growth in warehousing increases relative to the growth of transportation/warehousing employment overall. Therefore, the post-2003 trend was used to extrapolate from 2016 to 2040 for both for the warehousing sub -category and the rest of Transportation sub- categories. 5) As a reasonableness check, the growth in warehouse jobs and non -warehouse jobs in the Transportation and Warehouse category were compared to historic trends. As can be seen in Figure 2-9, the forecasts produced by steps 1 through 4 appear to be reasonable considering the best available data. 6) Steps 1 through 5 produced a control total for the growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County, but contain no information about where in the county the jobs would be located. Locational data is needed so that the growth will be properly represented in the forecast in terms of where they will affect the freeway system. The best available data for the distribution of growth among the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) comes from a study currently underway by SCAG, some products of which are available for modeling purposes6. Figure 2-10 shows the TAZs with the highest warehousing growth in the SCAG model SED. The large majority of growth is associated 4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic.html 5 Impact fee programs must demonstrate a rational nexus and rough proportionality between the nature of the development that would be subject to the fee, the magnitude of the impact being created, and the cost to mitigate the specific impact. For fee studies, it is important not to over -estimate impacts or thr required mitigation, which can be different from other types of traffic impact studies done pursuant to CEQA, where it is typically more important not to under -estimate impacts. 6 The on -going SCAG study also produced some forecasts of warehouse jobs by TAZ, but the SCAG team stated that these were very preliminary and recommended that they not be used for the current nexus study. 7 362 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis with the World Logistics Center —this TAZ contains 91% of the growth for the county. After the five TAZ with the largest growth, there are six TAZs each with less than 1 /o of the warehousing employment in the county. The control total from Step 5 was multiplied by the percentage of growth for each TAZ to produce the forecast of the growth in warehouse employment by TAZ. 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 0 O O N N O 0 Transportation Employment: Caltrans Economic Forecast by County O 0 N N L.0 ao 0 O O c-I O O O N N N Historical Forecast N O N d' O N lD O N CO O N 0 N O N N N O N N O N lD N O N OO N O N 0 CO O N Rivers ideCounty San Be rna rd in o Cou nty N CO O N m O N lD CO O N CO CO O N 0 V O N Figure 2-6: Caltrans Economic Forecast for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Transportation Employment: Caltrans Economic Forecast vs SCAG Model [Riverside County] 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 • • • • • 4 •• 10,000 •••• ■ •••••••••• ••••••••••••• ■ • •• • ■ • • 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 R SCAG Model SED Caltrans Economic Forecast Figure 2-7: Caltrans Economic Forecast Transportation Employment Compared to the SCAG model's Transportation Employment Data for Riverside 8 363 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 50% 40 30% 20 10% 0% Percent of Transportation Employment (NAICS 43) in Warehousing (NAI CS 43-493) [Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA] O I N Cr) •71- Lff lD Is, CO Ql O I N M d- Lf1 lD Is, CO 01 O r I N M Lf1 lD 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O O O O O O O O O O 01 al al 01 01 01 01 01 01 010 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c-I c-I c-I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri N N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNN Figure 2-8: The Proportion of Warehousing to Transportation Employment from the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 EDD Warehouse and other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends [Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA] Historical O N lD 00 O N lD 00 O 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 cI 01 01 01 01 01 O O O O O O c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I N NNNNN Warehouse Forecast N cr lfl 00 O N d- c-I r-I r-I r-I N N N O O O O O O O NNNNNNN Non -Warehouse lD N O N 00 N O N O N 0101 00 N N M O N lfl M O N CO M O N O O N Figure 2-9: Extrapolated EDD to 2040 Using the 2003 to 2016 Trend for Warehousing and Other Transportation Employment 9 364 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Figure 2-10: TAZs with Largest Warehousing/Logistics Growth in Riverside County 2.1.3. Model Post Processing The model data was post -processed to calculate peak hour volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratios and identify deficiencies. Link data was processed for all freeway links in Riverside County. The SCAG model generates link flows for the AM peak (3-hour) and PM (4-hour) peak periods. Peak period flows for non -trucks were converted to hourly flows using conversion factors of 0.35 and 0.28 for AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These factors were taken from San Bernardino County CMP Appendix H - Post Processed Traffic Volume Guidelines and are widely used in model applications in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Trucks were assumed to have a flat demand for each hour within a peak period (i.e. factors of 0.33 and 0.25 for AM and PM). Then, the validation factors discussed in Section 2.1 (0.74 and 0.80 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively) were applied to non -truck flows. 10 365 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 2.2. IDENTIFYING DEFICIENCIES The V/C ratio was computed for each link in the AM and PM peak hours using the capacities and passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors' embedded in the SCAG model which account for grade. Per the RCTC Congestion Management Program, the adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) threshold for freeways in Riverside County is LOS "E" meaning that facilities with a V/C ratio of 1.0 or higher are considered deficient. Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-13 show the existing V/C ratios for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively. There are three current deficiencies identified in Riverside County: SR-91 in Corona during the both the AM and PM peak hours, I-15 in the Jurupa Valley during the PM peak hour, and I-215 between Riverside and Moreno Valley during the PM peak hour. These congested sections may result in queuing in upstream sections whose V/C ratios would not in themselves be problematic, so drivers may perceive the problem sections to be longer than shown. Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-14 shows 2040 traffic demand assigned to the existing network$ with no capacity improvements for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The existing deficiencies would worsen and two additional deficiencies in the AM peak hour and five additional deficiencies in the PM peak hour would be created. 7 PCE factors are used to account for the difference in size, speed, and maneuverability between different classes of vehicles, including the effect of slopes on the operating characteristics of trucks. 8 The SCAG existing model network represents the current state of the transportation system in 2016 and does not reflect those projects completed since 2016. In Riverside County, the SR-91 Express Lanes Extension project that included various freeway improvements along SR-91 from the Orange County line to I-15 was completed after 2016. Projects completed after 2016 (as well as projects currently under construction) get reconciled during subsequent study steps, as described in Chapter 4 of this technical memorandum. 11 366 367 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Figure 2-11: Existing Deficiencies in Riverside County during the AM Peak Hour Figure 2-12: Future Deficiencies in Riverside County during the AM Peak Hour 12 368 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis • 1-215 between Riverside & Moreno Valley Figure 2-13: Existing Deficiencies in Riverside County during the PM Peak Hour --` Worsening) )e icie Figure 2-14: Future Deficiencies in Riverside County during the PM Peak Hour 13 369 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 3. ATTRIBUTING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES TO NEW LOGISTICS DEVELOPMENT 3.1. PERCENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT The Mitigation Fee Act limits impact fees to new development's "fair share" of the cost of needed improvements. For that reason, once the existing and future freeway deficiencies were identified, the next step was to determine how much of each future deficiency can be attributed to traffic from future development. There are three possible situations for each freeway link: • Freeway volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, even when the traffic from new development is added in. In such cases there is no deficiency. No fee can be collected because no improvement is needed. • Existing traffic volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, but the addition of traffic from new growth creates a deficiency where none previously existed. In such cases 10o/ of the deficiency can be attributed to new development. • There is an existing deficiency that will worsen with the addition of traffic from new growth. In these cases, the percent of the deficiency attributable to new growth is the portion of the excess traffic (excess being the traffic above the capacity of the road) that arises from new growth rather than from existing traffic. 3.2. PERCENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW LOGISTICS DEVELOPMENT 3.2.1. Tracking new logistics truck traffic in the SCAG model In order compute the percent of each deficiency that is attributable to new logistics development, it was necessary to keep track of trips generated by new logistics uses during the model assignment. The socio-economic data (SED) input files were modified in such a way that only growth in warehousing employment were allocated to traffic analysis zones (TAz), so all trips to or from these TAz can be attributed to only new logistics activity. A select -zone query was generated during the assignment step so the new logistics trips were recorded for each link in the model. The SCAG model classifies vehicles by class including trucks, so trucks in the select -zone query represent all the truck traffic attributable to new logistics development. Figure 3-1 shows the truck traffic due to new logistics, with bandwidth proportional to traffic flow. The largest flows are forecast to come from the proposed World Logistics Center, with the location of the World Logistics Center highlighted for easy reference. The largest increases in truck flows would occur on SR-60 and 1-215 west of the World Logistics Center. 3.2.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development First, for each link, the growth in traffic volumes (measured as passenger car equivalents or PCE) from 2016 to 2040 was calculated. Then new logistics truck traffic was taken as a percent of that overall growth. This percent of growth attributable to new logistics trucks was 14 370 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis multiplied by the percent of deficiencies attributable to growth to find the percent of each deficiency specifically attributable to new logistics truck traffic. All these steps were done for both AM and PM peak hour traffic, then the peak hour with the higher percent attributable was selected to represent the link. vir _.■■mu tr,P.' � �11, ©F ►" a■•11-'�1ts -a: a •■err �����i�r.:,.. •. :y,:3�:�:�A. . 1.�■1:: P� Figure 3-1: New Logistics Trucks in western Riverside County 3.3. IDENTIFYING PROJECTS Links with new or increased deficiencies in either peak hour relative to existing conditions were identified as potential locations for improvement projects. Continuous sequences of model links were grouped into locations represented by a critical link for determining percent attributable to new logistics. Table 3-1 shows the critical V/C ratios, deficiencies, and percent attributable for each project location. Figure 3-2 visually represents the components of traffic (existing, non -logistics growth, and logistics growth) relative to the capacity for each project location. For example, existing demand is less than capacity at project 4, so there is no existing deficiency. Therefore, the deficiency that is expected to appear by 2040 is entirely attributable to new development. At project 5, the existing demand exceeds capacity, and growth increases the deficiency. Figure 3-3 shows the project locations on a map. 15 371 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Table 3-1: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable Project ID Route Name Di Critical Segment 2016 GP Lanes on Critical Segment Critical V/C ratio Percent Deficiency Attributable to New Development New Logistics Trucks as Percent of 2016 to 2040 Growth Percent Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics Trucks by Peak Hour Percent Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics Trucks Start End 2016 AM 2016 PM V/C V/C 2040AM 2040 PM V/C V/C AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour (A) (BI (C)=100%, for (A)<1.O and (B)>1.0 (C) = I(e)-(A)]/[(e)-1], for (A)> 1.0 (D) (E)=(C)*(D) (F)=Max(E) 1 I-15 NB SR-79S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 4 4 0.35 0.45 0.66 0.74 0.52 0.60 1.01 1.01 No Deficiency No Deficiency 100% 100% 1.2% 1.4% 0.7% 0.7% No Deficiency No Deficiency 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2 1-15 NB Winchester Rd Lane Add south of 1-15/1-215 Split 4 0.46 0.79 0.58 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 2.3% 0.9% No Deficiency 0.9% 0.9% 3 1-15 NB Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 3 0.52 0.80 0.65 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 1.1% 0.3% No Deficiency 0.3% 0.3% 4 1-15 NB El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 3 0.86 0.90 1.03 0.88 100% No Deficiency 1.1% 100.0% 1.1% No Deficiency 1.1% 5 1-15 NB Norco Dr/6th Street Limonite Ave 3 0.82 1.10 0.87 1.14 No Deficiency 29% 4.1% 2.5% No Deficiency 0.7% 0.7% 6 I-15 SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th Street 3 3 0.77 0.87 0.96 1.01 0.77 0.90 1.02 1.04 No Deficiency No Deficiency 100% 88% 100.0% 4.7% 4.3% 5.9% No Deficiency No Deficiency 4.3% 5.2% 4.3% 5.2% 7 1-15 SB El Cerrito Rd Dos Lagos Dr 3 0.65 0.92 0.61 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 2.2% No Deficiency 2.2% 2.2% 8 1-15 SB Temescal Canyon Rd Indian Truck Trail 3 0.61 0.83 0.56 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 100.0•/0 1.4% No Deficiency 1.4% 1.4% 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 3 3 0.84 0.87 0.95 1.00 0.81 0.82 1.03 1.06 No Deficiency No Deficiency 100% 100% 100.0% 100.0% 30.9% 39.0% No Deficiency No Deficiency 30.9% 39.0% 30.9% 39.0% 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Watkins Dr Central Ave Martin Luther King Jr 4 4 0.94 0.94 1.08 1.05 1.09 1.12 1.07 1.16 100% 100% 0% 66% 14.3% 24.8% 100.0% 57.9% 14.3% 24.8% 0.0% 38.4% 14.3% 38.4% 10c 1-215 NB University Ave Off -Ramp Upstream of Univ Ave On -ramp 3 0.90 1.04 0.98 1.04 No Deficiency 13% 26.9% 100.0% No Deficiency 13.3% 13.3% 11 1-215 NB Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Li ne/Iowa Ave 3 0.79 1.00 0.79 1.03 No Deficiency 97% 91.5% 12.2% No Deficiency 11.8% 11.8% 12 1-215 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 4 0.96 1.13 1.07 1.25 100% 50% 57.1% 55.2% 57.1% 27.796 57.1% 13 1-215 SB Van Buren Blvd Harley Knox Blvd 3 0.67 0.95 0.64 1.06 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 4.4% No Deficiency 4.4% 4.4% 14 SR-91 NB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp 5 5 4 0.89 0.79 0.92 1.18 1.01 1.17 0.76 0.72 0.85 1.23 1.02 1.27 No Deficiency No Deficiency No Deficiency 23% 69% 36% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6.1% 14.1% 4.1% No Deficiency No Deficiency No Deficiency 1.4% 9.8% 1.5% 1.4% 9.8% 1.5% 15 SR-91 NB Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Grand Blvd Off -Ramp 4 0.85 1.00 0.80 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.9% No Deficiency 8.9% 8.9% 16 SR-91 NB On -Ramp from SBl-15 On -Ramp from NBl-15 3 0.81 1.03 0.76 1.07 No Deficiency 55% 100.0% 13.6% No Deficiency 7.5% 7.5% 17 SR-91 NB McKinley St Off -Ramp Pierce St 3 0.81 0.98 0.76 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 10.1% No Deficiency 10.1% 10.1% 18 SR-91 NB Magnolia Ave LaSierra Ave 3 0.76 0.93 0.69 1.00 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.3% No Deficiency 8.3% 8.3% 19 SR-91 SB Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line 4 5 0.97 0.92 1.08 1.00 1.05 1.02 1.01 0.91 100% 100% 0% No Deficiency 2.8% 1.8% 100.0% 100.0% 2.8% 1.8% 0.0% No Deficiency 2.8% 1.8% 372 16 373 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% la 1b 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7 8 9a 9b 10a 10b 10c 11 12 13 14a 14b 14c 15 16 17 18 19a 19b • __ • Capacity ■ Existing Traffic ■ Non -Logistics Growth ■ New Logistics Trucks Figure 3-2: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity 17 374 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis MMilrilli rr 1111. MIUM.111 _■�EMd s' - uur1 u�� ■r■` '11 r■ �■! FP ••••1611111111141111"-- nWii Mal P' iliplimmori 1 4 -m 1.=.= _ r4,0 4.00 ik„...0:444tah ,11P0-e" 4,0-q74, r y p •r . r sir 0I Figure 3-3: Deficient Segment Location Map 18 375 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 4. ESTIMATING FREEWAY PROJECT COSTS 4.1 . ASSESSING PROJECT LIMITS Section 2 of this memorandum described how future capacity deficiencies on the freeway network in Riverside County were identified. The findings of this effort were summarized as a list of directional freeway segments where the future demand exceeded capacity and resulted in a bottleneck in the system. Limiting capacity expansion to the specific identified segment would be expected mitigate the bottleneck in that segment, however it is likely that the bottleneck would be moved to the next adjacent segment without alleviating the capacity deficiency. Therefore, the list of deficient segments was reviewed in relation to the traffic data and the physical characteristics of the existing freeway facility to determine the extent of the improvement projects that would be necessary (i.e. to define the practical limits and logical termini for the associated improvement project) to address the actual operational problem, not just the specific upstream bottleneck location. At each freeway segment identified as having a capacity deficiency, the traffic data was reviewed to determine the location (typically an off -ramp) where the demand along the corridor was reduced enough to no longer exceed the capacity of the freeway mainline. Other considerations were physical characteristics of the freeway that might also contribute to capacity reduction, such as uphill grades where truck lanes would benefit the operation of the freeway, and system interchanges where demand changed substantially and there were opportunities for lane drops at freeway -to -freeway connectors. The practical limits of each of the 19 projects required to mitigate the deficient segments are listed in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects ID Route Name Dir Beginning End 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 5 Norco Dr/6th St Limonite Ave 6 SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th 7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 10 1-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr 19 376 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis ID Route Name Dir Beginning End Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd 14 SR-91 EB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off -Ramp Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp 15 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off -Ramp 16 On -Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 17 McKinley St Off Ramp Pierce St 18 Pierce St Magnolia St 19 WB Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line The limits of one project, Number 13, were slightly ambiguous based on the review of traffic and physical features, as well in consideration of the proximity of future warehousing and logistics development activity. For these reasons, Project 13 was presented with two options - from Van Buren Boulevard to D Street and from Van Buren Boulevard to Case Road - and cost estimates were prepared for each option so that the Study Advisory Team could assess the value of each option separately and determine which option adequately addressed the capacity constraint. The Study Advisory Team, at the meeting held on February 22, 2018, recommended Option 2 be advanced for the purposes of the study. 4.2. REVIEW OF CURRENTLY FUNDED/PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS Once the practical limits of the improvements were defined, each project was compared to known, funded/programmed projects that were recently completed (and are not included in the SCAG 2016 Model existing network), are currently under construction, or are currently in development and are funded for construction. There are three projects that are within the study area that were identified as meeting these criteria: • The I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange Project, Phases 1 and 2 • The I-15 Express Lane Project • The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project The French Valley Parkway Project includes the implementation of the I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange as well as improvements to the Winchester Road Interchange and a 377 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis collector -distributor road system along I-15 between Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 system interchange. This project adds as many as three lanes in each direction north of Winchester Road. Based on the Preferred Alternative Layout Plans included in the IS/EA (January 2010), the FVP Phasing Exhibit (December 2, 2015) and the Ultimate Project Exhibit (July 12, 2017), it was determined that the French Valley Parkway Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segment 2. The I-15 Express Lane Project will implement one or two tolled managed lanes in each direction northbound and southbound between Cajalco Road and SR-60. This project also adds general purpose lanes and auxiliary lanes at specific locations. Based on a review of the I-15 Express Lane Project Tolling Concept Plans (June 21, 2017), the I-15 Express Lane Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 4, 5, and 6. The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project extends from west of the Orange County Line to east of I-15 both eastbound and westbound. In addition to the tolled express lanes, additional general purpose lanes were also constructed as part of this project. Based on a field review of the project as it has been constructed, the SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 14,15,17, and 19. Table 4-2 lists the remaining deficient segments and associated mitigation projects that would be included as the basis for the logistics fee program. Table 4-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program ID Route Name Dir Beginning End 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd 16 SR-91 EB On -Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 18 Pierce St Magnolia St 378 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 4.3. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT CONCEPTS Using scalable, georeferenced aerial photography, project concept plans were developed that show the primary quantifiable cost items for each project, including: • Right -of -Way Impact • Retaining Walls • Freeway Mainline Widening • Structure Construction • Ramp Realignment • Roadway Excavation • Street Improvements • Signalization The concept plans show colored lines and areas that can be measured and used to estimate quantities for the various categories of construction or property acquisition. These project concept drawings were reviewed by the Study Advisory Team to confirm that they reasonably represent the minimum improvements necessary to mitigate the identified deficiency. The resultant improvement concept plans are included in Appendix A of this technical memorandum. 4.4. PROJECT COST ESTIMATING For the initial assessment and development of project concept plans, Google Earth was used to determine existing conditions for the corridors. The conditions recorded include number of lanes, width of pavement, HOV lanes, inside (left) shoulder width, outside (right) shoulder width, assumed right-of-way boundary, freeway structures, ramp locations, major drainage facilities, retaining walls, sounds walls, signage, and signals. All widths and lengths provided were obtained by doing desktop research on Google Earth and limited field reviews, and were based on sound engineering judgement. The unit costs for the various construction components were taken from the Caltrans cost database and other recent project cost estimates for project of similar scale and scope within the Inland Empire. Right-of-way cost per residential unit and per square foot are based on current property valuations in Riverside County. Roadway Item Costs - Roadway costs include PCC pavement, tie -back walls, pavement markings and markers and replacement of signs. Unit costs were extrapolated from a similar freeway construction project. 22 379 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis - The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the roadway component. Drainage Item Costs - Per our initial assessment, widening affects the existing drainage. Further analysis is needed as impacts to drainage can increase the costs. - The costs associated with the potential impacts to drainage are 15% of the roadway items cost. Specialty Item Costs - Specialty item costs include retaining walls due to proposed widening, removal of existing retaining walls, sounds wall replacement, tie back walls and ramp adjustments. - The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the specialty item costs. Minor Items Costs - Minor items can include anything from ADA items to other minor items that are not considered high costs items. Typical Caltrans value is 5-10%. Mobilization Costs - Mobilization includes costs incurred due to mobilization of personnel and equipment as well as pre -construction expenses. Typical value of 10% can be adjusted when actual costs are available. Roadway Additions - Roadway addition items can include price index fluctuations, value analysis, maintaining traffic, removal of rock and debris, etc. These supplemental items cover work for items that cannot be quantified as contract bid item. All roadway supplemental items would be within the FHWA approved items list. At this stage it is appropriate to assume there will be supplemental items. Typical Caltrans value is 5- 10%. Contingency - Contingency of 25 % is within Caltrans recommended values. Pre-PSR 30%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10% and final PS&E is 5%. Caltrans contingencies allow for unforeseen increases. Due to the level of detail and engineering available, the contingency percentage is appropriate. As more information becomes available, costs would be refined and contingency would be decreased. This is typical per Caltrans. Support Costs - Support costs are 35% of the capital outlay costs. Support costs include design costs, construction management, Caltrans reimbursed costs and Metro internal costs. These 23 380 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis costs are functional overhead costs not administrative overhead. The support costs can be refined as more information becomes available. The costs presented are based on a conceptual engineering assessment using Google desktop research. All costs and impacts are based on a visual analysis and it should be noted that no detailed engineering or surveying has been done to verify the assumptions. The proposed improvement project conceptual cost estimates were compared to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, with a focus on identifying arterial -freeway interchange and bridge projects that are also included in TUMF. The TUMF program assesses all development types, including warehouse and logistics uses, impact fees to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on the arterial highway system, including arterial -freeway interchanges and bridges. As such, new warehouse and logistics uses are already contributing toward the cost of these improvement projects to the extent they are included in the TUMF program. Where the conceptual improvement projects were determined to include project elements that were also identified in the TUMF program, the conceptual cost estimate for the project was reduced by an amount equal to the lesser of the estimated conceptual cost of the relevant project element (i.e. the conceptual cost of the arterial interchange and/or bridge improvements) or the maximum eligible amount prescribed in the 2016 TUMF Nexus Study. This reduction in the conceptual improvement costs as part of this study eliminates overlap with the TUMF program in terms of the cost for implementing arterial interchange and bridge improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed freeway capacity expansion necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development, including warehousing and logistics uses, on the freeway network. The resultant conceptual project cost estimates are summarized it 24 381 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Table 4-3. A more detailed breakout of the conceptual project cost estimates to mitigate the deficient segments is included in Appendix B of this technical memorandum. 25 382 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Table 4-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates ID Noaturtie Di r Beginning End Cost Estimate 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000 7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 Market St Main St 10 I 215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,000 Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 16 SR-91 EB On -Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 $7,611,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 Total Project Cost Estimate $385,335,000 383 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 5. FUNDING SOURCES AND FUNDING GAP This section of the memorandum reviews transportation funding projections in existing documents and describes recent or anticipated additional sources that might be available to complete freeway' capacity expansion projects identified as part of this study. This analysis starts with a recent, comprehensive analysis of potential funding - the Riverside County Strategic Assessment - which is described in the next section. It takes the results of this assessment and uses similar assumptions to add in more recent funding sources, such as those associate with California Senate Bill (SB) 1. The various funding sources are then assessed for their potential to fulfill identified project needs and costs described in Chapters 2 to 4 of this memorandum. The potential revenues and anticipated needs are then compared to conclude a gap analysis in the following chapter. 5.1. RIVERSIDE COUNTY STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT In 2015, the RCTC directed its staff to conduct an assessment to assist the Commission in examining the County's need for transportation investments. The objective was to produce findings and recommendation on actions the Commission could take to proactively prepare for the future. In early 2016, the RCTC approved the Riverside County Strategic Assessment10. It considered demographics, state local, federal transportation policies and revenues and a survey of public and stakeholder perspectives. The assessment includes recommendations regarding future planning, asset maximization, increasing funding and communication. The Strategic Assessment includes a detailed review of federal, state and local revenues through 2040.1112 It looked at 37 different funding sources covering all modes and categorized them into three levels (A, B and C), depending on their level of certainty. Category A represents existing revenues that can be reasonably expected to be available in the future, Category B includes existing and programmed revenues that Riverside County might realistically secure on a discretionary or competitive basis and those in Category C are considered strategy revenues. Category C revenues represent the highest risk as they are contingent upon implementation of future legislation or funding mechanisms. The Strategic Assessment conducted an analysis for the 24-year period from 2016-2039. It assumed that most programs continued with increases at the rate of inflation throughout this period, with noted exceptions13. It found that, of the total $23 billion in projected need, categories A and B left a funding gap of $16 billion. New revenues from Category C were only expected to cover $6 million of the need, leaving a $10 billion gap. In looking more closely at funding by project type, the Strategic Assessment reviewed the following funding sources for freeways and interchanges: 9 Arterial funding sources are not addressed in this analysis as there are separate fee mechanisms already in place for arterial projects. 10 HDR, January 2016, Riverside County Strategic Assessment: Executive Summary, RCTC. 11 Since the document was prepared in 2015, it did not include several recent funding sources, which are discussed later in this memo. 12 HDR, November 4, 2015, RCTC Strategic Assessment Technical Memorandum: Task 4 Funding Gap Analysis. 13 Ibid. Details of programs and assumptions are contained the tables 8-12 in the appendix to the technical memo. 27 384 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Federal • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) • Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) State • Regional Improvement Program (RIP) • Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) • Mileage Based User -Fees (MBUF) Local • Measure A • SR 91 toll revenues • I-15 Express Lane toll revenues • Mid County Parkway (MCP) toll revenues CMAQ and RSTP funds can go to various modes. The Strategic Assessment assumed that, while historically much of the CMAQ funds have gone to toll lanes, over time transit projects will receive a greater portion of the funding. It assumed that 30% of the CMAQ and 50% of RSTP funds will go to freeway projects in the future. The Regional Improvement Program (RIP) is the largest funding source over which RCTC has programming authority. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is developed and approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by April of every even year. Each county transportation agency in the state is responsible for programming projects on or off the state highway system with Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds, which represent 75% of the total STIP funds available for project programming. Eligible projects include capital improvement projects (e.g. interchange improvements, freeway and arterial widening, commuter rail stations, etc.) and planning and rideshare activities. The Strategic Assessment includes federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds under arterials rather than freeways, although funds can be devoted to any public road. The HSIP requires a data -driven, performance based approach to improving highway safety. It provides a maximum of $10 million in federal funds on projects that reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries and can be designed and constructed expeditiously. Another fund that has been used on freeways but was not included in the Strategic Assessment is the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). SHOPP is the State's "fix -it - first" program that funds the repair and preservation of the State Highway System (SHS), safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements. While the Strategic Assessment did not address preservation and maintenance, the SHOPP is worth noting as it 28 385 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis protects the enormous investment that has been made over many decades to create and manage the approximately 50,000 lane -mile SHS. All projects funded by the SHOPP are limited to capital improvements that do not add capacity (no new highway lanes) to the SHS, although auxiliary lanes (including truck climbing lanes) are eligible for SHOPP funding. Revenues for the SHOPP are generated by federal and state gas taxes and are fiscally constrained by the State Transportation Improvement Program Fund Estimate (Fund Estimate) that is produced by Caltrans based on established criteria and adopted by the California Transportation Commission. According to the Strategic Assessment, the total costs of freeway and interchange projects between 2016 and 2039 were expected to be $8.724 billion and the revenues are $5.326 billion. So, only 61% of the freeway needs are funded, leaving an unfunded gap of $3.326 billion through 2039. Table 5-1 shows the breakdown of funding by program and risk. Table 5-1: Freeway Funding Program, Amount (in millions) and Risk Funding Program Category A Category B Category C Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $219.7 Regional Surface Transportation Program $315.2 (RSTP) State Regional Improvement Program (RIP) $441.9 Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) $58.8 Mileage Based User -Fees (MBUF) $2,233.5 Local Measure A* $915.7 SR 91 Net Toll Revenues* $618.5 I-15 Express Lane Toll Revenues* $319.7 Mid County Parkway (MCP) toll revenues $153.5 Total (2016-2039) $2,880 $59 $2,387 *Debt service and operations and maintenance costs have been deducted from these amounts. The Strategic Assessment points out that funds for freeway and interchanges rely most heavily on the highest risk (Category C) funding sources. So, of the funding that was anticipated for 29 386 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis freeways and interchanges, fully 67% was from Category C. As shown in Table 5-1, a large portion of the Category C funds are from MBUF and tolled -based financing of the MCP. The Assessment also noted that Measure A programs are further suballocated to additional geographies and programs. For example, while the majority appears to be allocated to freeways, there are specific suballocations to counties and, within those, to various modal programs. While the majority of the amount apportioned to freeways falls within the western part of the County, some is dedicated to Coachella Valley. We have not completed further disaggregation based on geography for this analysis. Because the assessment was prepared in 2015 it did not include certain funding sources approved after that. New funding sources and their potential implications are described in the following sections. 5.2. FIXING AMERICANS SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT On December 4, 2015 President Obama signed Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) Act14 into law. It was the first law enacted in over ten years that provides long-term funding certainty for surface transportation. The FAST Act allows states and local governments greater confidence in federal funding for transportation projects. Overall, the FAST Act largely maintains program structures and funding shares between highways and transit. It was viewed as a down -payment for building a 21st century transportation system. The law also makes changes and reforms to many Federal transportation programs, including streamlining the approval processes for new transportation projects, providing new safety tools, and establishing new programs to advance critical freight projects. The relevant funding programs are described below. The funding implications of all FAST Act funding programs on RCTC are discussed at the end of this section. 5.2.1. Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects The Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) program15 provides financial assistance —competitive grants, known as INFRA grants, or credit assistance —to nationally and regionally significant freight and highway projects. Funding is $800 million to $1 billion annually over the program life. Both large (over $100 million) and small (more than $5 million) projects are eligible, but 90% of program funds are reserved for large projects. Projects must support the national program goals to: • improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people; • generate national or regional economic benefits and an increase in global economic competitiveness of the U.S.; • reduce highway congestion and bottlenecks; • improve connectivity between modes of freight transportation; 14 Pub. L. No. 114-94 15 FAST Act § 1105; 23 U.S.C. 117 30 387 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis • enhance the resiliency of critical highway infrastructure and help protect the environment; • improve roadways vital to national energy security; and • address the impact of population growth on the movement of people and freight. Both highway and freight projects - including rail intermodal projects, grade crossings and rail and port projects - are eligible. Highway projects must be either on the NHS or the National Highway Freight network. Funding for non -highway freight projects is limited to $500 million over the life of the program. Funding may go to any project phase including planning, construction, and operational improvements. However, the project must have completed preliminary engineering and be reasonably expected to begin construction within 18 months of obligation of funds. States, MPOs, local governments, public authorities, political subdivision, tribal governments and groups of these entities may apply. The program encourages the use of nontraditional financing, innovative design and construction techniques, innovative technologies, and non - Federal contributions as well as geographic diversity among grant recipients. Non-federal funding commitments, however, must be backed by contingency and have additional stable and dependable sources of funding to construct operate and maintain and operate the project. Projects must: • generate national or regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits; • be cost effective; • contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the national goals 5.2.2. Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program The Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program16 makes competitive grants for the development of model deployment sites for large scale installation and operation of advanced transportation technologies that improve safety, efficiency, system performance, and infrastructure return on investment. Program funding totals $60 million annually. The federal share cannot exceed 50% of the cost of the project. Eligible projects include deployment of advanced transportation and congestion management technologies, such as: • advanced traveler information systems; • advanced transportation management technologies; • infrastructure maintenance, monitoring, and condition assessment; • advanced public transportation systems; 16 FAST Act § 6004; 23 U.S.C. 503(c)(4) 388 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis • transportation system performance data collection, analysis, and dissemination systems; • advanced safety systems, including vehicle -to -vehicle and vehicle -to -infrastructure communications; • technologies associated with autonomous vehicles, and other collision avoidance technologies, including systems using cellular technology; • integration of intelligent transportation systems with the Smart Grid and other energy distribution and charging systems; • electronic pricing and payment systems; or • advanced mobility and access technologies, such as dynamic ridesharing and information systems to support human services for elderly and disabled individuals." 5.2.3. Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program The Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program" provides grants to States or groups of States to demonstrate user -based alternative revenue mechanisms that utilize a user fee structure to maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. The objectives of the program are: • to test the design, acceptance, and implementation of two or more future user -based alternative mechanisms; • to improve the functionality of the user -based alternative revenue mechanisms; • to conduct outreach to increase public awareness regarding the need for alternative funding sources for surface transportation programs and to provide information on possible approaches; • to provide recommendations regarding adoption and implementation of user -based alternative revenue mechanisms; and • to minimize the administrative cost of any potential user -based alternative revenue mechanisms. A total of $20 million is available annually. The Federal share of the cost of an activity carried out under the program may not exceed 50 percent. Geographic diversity will be considered in award of grants. Program funds will test the design, acceptance, and implementation of a user -based alternative revenue mechanism, consistent with the program's objectives. Revenue collected through a user -based alternative revenue mechanism established with program funds may not be considered a toll under 23 U.S.C. 301. Because of the program's limitations and focus on testing, no estimates have been included among the funds available for freeway projects in this analysis. 17 23.U.S.C. 503(c)(4)(E) 18 FAST Act § 6020 32 389 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 5.2.4. FAST Act Funding Implications for RCTC As described in the previous section, the FAST Act provided two new grant programs - NSFHP and the Advanced Technology and Congestion program - that could reasonably be relied upon to provide funding for freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County. As stated previously, this analysis took similar assumptions as the Strategic Assessment. In the Assessment, RCTC assumed that it could win competitive grants commensurate with the proportion its population represents. For federal grants, Riverside County represented .74 percent of the national population19. Table 5-2 shows the new FAST funding amounts by program and risk category that could reasonably be expected to be available to RCTC each year based on this proportion of total program funding: Table 5-2: Projected Annual RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions) Funding Program Category A Category B Category C NSFHP (INFRA) $6.66 Advanced Technology and Congestion Management Deployment Program $.444 Total $7.104 5.3. ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 SENATE BILL 1 In 2017 the California legislature passed and the governor signed into law a major transportation funding bill.20 The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (referred to as SB1) provided additional funding to several existing programs, including the STIP, and established several new funding programs that are relevant to this project. The relevant SB1 programs and their implications for RCTC are described below. 5.3.1. Trade Corridor Enhancement Program The objective of the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program is to fund infrastructure improvements on federally designated Trade Corridors of National and Regional Significance, on the Primary Freight Network, as identified in the California Freight Mobility Plan, and along other corridors that have a high volume of freight movement as determined by the Commission.21 The Trade Corridor Enhancement Program is also intended to support the goals of the National Highway Freight Program, the California Freight Mobility Plan, and the guiding principles in the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan. 19 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/riversidecountycalifornia,US/PST045216 20 http://catc.ca.gov/ 21 http://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/tcep/ 33 390 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis The Commission intends to allocate $1.3 Billion, in roughly equal annual installments, in the initial three-year program. Allocations are anticipated to continue after 2020, but the amounts aren't known. The initial program is funded by three years of Trade Corridor Enhancement Account funding ($794 million), five years of federal National Highway Freight Program funding ($535 million) and a one-time appropriation of $11 million the Budget Act of 2015. Caltrans is targeted to receive 40% for projects it applies for administers. Funding is available for projects that significantly contribute to the freight system's economic activity or vitality; relieve congestion on the freight system; improve the safety, security, or resilience of the freight system; improve or preserve the freight system infrastructure; implement technology or innovation to improve the freight system or reduce or avoid its negative impacts; or reduce or avoid adverse community and/or environmental impacts of the freight system. Qualifying project costs include permits and environmental studies; plans, specifications and estimates; right-of-way; and construction. The Commission has already identified the following corridors as eligible under this program: Bay Area, Central Valley, Central Coast, Lost Angeles/Inland Empire and San Diego/Border. Other regions are eligible to apply if they have a high volume of freight movement and otherwise meet the criteria for funding. The initial target for the Los Angeles/Inland Empire (which includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties) is $467 million. Eligible applicants include local, regional, and public agencies such as cities, counties, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, port authorities, public construction authorities, and Caltrans. Project proposals from private entities must be submitted by a public agency. Projects will first be screened to ensure they: meet the project eligibility requirements and program objectives, are in an adopted RTP that is consistent with regional greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, demonstrate that negative environmental/community impacts will be mitigated and will stimulate economic activity and jobs. High scoring projects will be evaluated on freight system factors (throughput, velocity and reliability), transportation system factors (safety, congestion reduction, bottleneck relief, multi -modal strategy, interregional benefits, advanced technology) and community impact factors (air quality impact, community impact mitigation, economic/jobs growth). 5.3.2. Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Solutions for Congested Corridors Program' (Congested Corridors Program) appropriates two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) annually to projects designed to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements within highly congested travel corridors throughout the state. The primary objective of the Congested Corridors Program is to fund projects that make specific improvements and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled corridors by providing more transportation choices while preserving the character of the local community and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement projects. 22 http://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/sccp/ 34 391 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Funds are allocated by the California Transportation Commission (Commission). Improvements may be on the state highway system, local streets and roads, public transit facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities or required mitigation or restoration or some combination thereof. A regional transportation planning agency or county transportation commission or authority responsible for preparing a regional transportation improvement plan under Section 14527 of the Government Code or Caltrans may nominate projects for funding. 5.3.3. Local Partnership Program The Local Partnership Program (LPP) appropriates two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually to local or regional transportation agencies that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees that are dedicated solely for transportation improvements. 23 Funds are allocated by the California Transportation Commission (Commission) - half competitively and the balance by formula. Projects will require at least a one-to-one match of private, local, federal, or state funds except jurisdictions with a voter approved tax or fee which generates less than $100,000 annually need only provide a match equal to 50% of the requested funds. Eligible projects include: (a) improvements to the state highway system; (b) improvements to transit facilities; (c) acquisition, retrofit, or rehabilitation of rolling stock, buses, or other transit equipment; (d) improvements to the local road system; (e) improvements to bicycle or pedestrian safety or mobility; (f) improvements to mitigate the environmental impact of new transportation infrastructure on a locality's or region's air quality or water quality; (g) a separate phase or stage of construction for an eligible project may include mitigation of the project's environmental impacts; (h) sound walls for certain freeways; (i) road maintenance and rehabilitation; and 0) other transportation improvement projects. Eligible applicants are the taxing authorities that have sought and received voter approval of taxes, tolls, or fees, or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 8879.67 of the Government Code, which are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. The Commission will give higher priority to projects that (a) are more cost-effective; (b) can commence construction or implementation earlier; (c) can leverage more committed funds per program dollar; (d) can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including a significant reduction in vehicle -miles traveled; (e) can demonstrate regional and community project support; and (f) within a Metropolitan Planning Organization, projects that further the implementation of the sustainable communities strategy. 5.3.4. SB1 Funding Implications for RCTC Most of the SB1 funds that could go to freeways and interchanges are via competitive grant programs. In 2016, Riverside County represented about six percent of the population in the 23 http://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/lpp/ 35 392 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis state.24 Assuming, on average, transportation projects are awarded approximately proportionate to county population, Table 5-3 shows the projected annual allocation projects in Riverside County could reasonably be expected to obtain. Table 5-3: Projected Annual SB1 Funding for RCTC (in millions) Funding Program Category A Category B Category C LPP (county allocation) $6.786 TCEP $25.997 SCCP $15 LPP (competitive grant) $6.786 $6.786 $47.783 5.4. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FUNDING FROM ALL SOURCES To quantify the total funds that might be available to freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County through 2040, sources identified in the Strategic Assessment were combined those from FAST and SB1 programs. Taking the approach used in the Strategic Assessment, unless otherwise specific, program funding levels were assumed to continue at the rate of inflation throughout the study period. Table 5-4 summarizes newly identified funding sources, while Table 5-5 combines new funding sources with those identified previously as part of the Strategic Assessment to establish a total of anticipated freeway project funding through 2040 from all sources by risk category. 24 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/riversidecountycalifornia,US/PST045216 36 393 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Table 5-4: Freeway Project Funding from New Sources 2017-2040 (in millions) Funding Program Category A Category B Category C Federal NSFHP (INFRA) $159.8 Advanced Technology and Congestion Management Deployment Program $10.7 State LPP (County Allocation) $162.9 TCEP $623.9 SCCP $360 LPP (competitive grants) $162.9 Grand Total New Sources $162.9 $1,317.3 Table 5-5: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions) Funding Source Category A Category B Category C Total Strategic Assessment Sources $2,948.6 $61 $2,465.8 Total New Sources $162.9 $1,317.3 Grand Total Old and New Sources $3111.5 $1,378.3 $2,465.8 As can be seen in Table 5-4 and Table 5-5, the infusion of SB1 funds, which are considered risk category B, creates better balance across the risk categories than that found in the Strategic Assessment, which was heavily reliance on high -risk, category C funds. However, although the SB1 program has been legislated there is also an on -going repeal effort, hence they have been identified as risk category B rather than category A. A sensitivity analysis was completed to assess the impact of a potential repeal on future transportation funding in the County. Table 5-6 shows the projected funds for freeway and interchange projects from all sources without SB1 funds. 37 394 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Table 5-6: Projected RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funds without SB1, 2017-2040 (millions) Funding Source Category A Category B Category C Total Strategic Assessment Sources $2,948.6 $61 $2,465.8 Total New Sources $162.9 $170.5 Grand Total Old and New Sources $3111.5 $231.5 $2,465.8 Table 5-7 shows the total funding that is expected to be available for freeway and related interchange projects in Riverside County over the next 24 years. As can be seen, the total projected funding that might reasonably be expected to be available for freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County through 2040 is expected to be nearly $6 billion, with approximately half of this funding expected to be made available through low risk category A funding sources, even without SB1 funding. This amount substantially exceeds the estimated cost to complete the various mitigation projects previously identified in Chapter 4 and summarized in 38 395 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis Table 4-3 of this report making the various improvement projects viable to be completed, even following the adjustment of funds to be generated through a potential logistics fee program to account for the portion of impact attributable to logistics uses. Table 5-7: Projected RCTC Funding with and without SB1, 2017-2040 (in millions) Scenario Total Funding With SB1 $6,955.6 Without SB1 $5,808.8 39 396 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 6. FUNDING GAP ANALYSIS As described in Chapters 3, the fair share of costs to mitigate future freeway deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics uses varies by segment, but is a relatively small proportion of the total cost to complete the necessary improvements. Furthermore, although the project concepts associated cost estimates have identified a minimum level of improvement necessary to reasonably mitigate the identified impact, it is likely the scale and scope of any proposed improvement project would be greater to account for the accomplishment of other transportation goals and/or freeway operational needs, including rehabilitation and roadway maintenance, resolution of existing needs, or anticipation of addition future demands beyond the horizon year of the fee program. Since the resolution of these items cannot be fairly attributed to the mitigation of new development impacts, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient alternative funding sources are expected to be available to complete the necessary improvements. The total estimated conceptual cost to complete the reasonable mitigation of deficient segments identified as part of this study is $385,335,000. Although a relatively small proportion of this cost can be attributed to new warehousing and logistics developments, and therefore this fair share of the mitigation cost could be derived from a logistics impact fee, the estimates of alternative funding sources described in Chapter 5 clearly indicate that the remaining costs to complete these improvement projects could reasonably be expected to be obtained from existing and proposed funding sources. Furthermore, the projected availability of future funding for freeway and interchange improvement projects is over ten times the amount of the conceptual cost estimates to mitigate the impacts of new development on the freeway system indicating that sufficient funding might reasonably be expected to account for the expansion of scale and scope of associated freeway projects to address other project needs not directly attributable to the impacts of new development. 40 397 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 7. APPENDICES Appendix A — Capacity Improvement Concept Plans Appendix B — Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables 41 398 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis APPENDIX A - CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS A-1 399 01-RCTC_Exh.dgn LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING t . '41 . - 4 L J STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION SB ON RAMP minri tie .114 OFF R4Mp i? STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 400 z "11.111 Se cC OFF o RqM Q u. P `:t Alegr"t- 1-15 NB *ir ,t` 1 Z 1 A ,% • r• JEFFERSON AVE 200' 0 200' SEE BELOW SEE BELOW 400' PROJECT ID 01 DATE PLOTTED =>01-MAR-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 11:45 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE => 01-RCTC_Exh.dgn 03-RCTC_Exh.dgn SEE ABOVE LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 401 v '1111111111111111,'Wor.tmovairo' i 200' 0 200' 400' PROJECT ID 03 DATE PLOTTED => 20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:14 USERNAME=>cascsr DGN FILE _> 03-RCTC_Exh.dgn 07 1 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn LEGEND 11 IZ ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL 3 WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 402 SEE EXHIBIT 07 2 OF 2 200' 0 200' 400' PROJECT ID 07 EXHIBIT 1 OF 3 DATE PLOTTED => 20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:14 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE _> 07_1 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn 07 2 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn SEE ABOVE miro ri ti TEMESCAL CANYON RD kilr -11,‘Mr.,`M. I= ram" �-"?}y,-:ir?-:xra'�' "..: - • 11111Fh i i1111111,II:1.4rig • 4` • • . .. f . LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 403 200' 0 200' 400' PROJECT ID 07 EXHIBIT 2 OF 3 DATE PLOTTED => 20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:14 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE _> 07_2 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn 07 3 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn LEGEND 1 IZ ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL 3 WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 404 200' 0 200' SEE BELOW 400' PROJECT ID 07 EXHIBIT 3 OF 3 DATE PLOTTED => 20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:15 USERNAME=>casass DGN FILE => 07_3 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn 08-RCTC_Exh.dgn LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION es) GO sO' Gp' 41, 04 Sg ON RAMP STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 405 r 200' Imig,31•11.••211111••••. 0 200' SEE BELOW 400' PROJECT ID 08 DATE PLOTTED => 20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:15 USERNAME =>casasr DGN FILE => 08-RCTC_Exh.dgn 09-RCTC_Exh.dgn LEGEND 1 ROW IMPACTS ' 2 RETAINING WALL 3 WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION �SRR:60 ER i J _ WB r: _ , OFF:_RA i r �FAIRG OA STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 406 200' 0 200' 400' PROJECT ID 09 DATE PLOTTED=>20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:15 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE => 09-RCTC_Exh.dgn 10-RCTC_Exh.dgn DATE PLOTTED=>20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:15 SB 1-215 NB 1-215 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE => 10-RCTC_Exh.dgn 10c-RCTC_Exh.dgn LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 408 200' 0 200' 400' PROJECT ID 10C DATE PLOTTED=>20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:15 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE => 10c-RCTC_Exh.dgn 11-RCTC_Exh.dgn LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 409 200' 0 200' 400' PROJECT ID 11 DATE PLOTTED=>20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:15 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE => 11-RCTC_Exh.dgn 12-RCTC_Exh.dgn DATE PLOTTED=>20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:15 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE _> 12-RCTC_Exh.dgn 13_OPT 1(1 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn SEE ABOVE SEE ABOVE LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 411 200' 0 200' 400' PROJECT ID 13 EXHIBIT 1 OF 4 DATE PLOTTED=>20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:15 USERNAME=>cascsr DGN FILE => 13_OPT 1(1 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn 13_OPT 1(2 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Fxh.dgn SEE ABOVE f SB 1-215 NB 1-215 175 FRO/TQG E RD LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING /!a•'s SSBOFF RAMP 4 1-215 FRONTAGE RD STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION issmormemeib STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 412 d 7 1-215 FRONTAGE RD SEE BELOW 200' 0 200' 400' PROJECT ID 13 EXHIBIT 2 OF 4 DATE PLOTTED=>20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:15 USERNAME=>cascsr DGN FILE => 13_OPT 1(2 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn 13_OPT 1(3 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn SEE ABOVE LEGEND 1 1 ROW IMPACTS ' 2 RETAINING WALL 3 WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 413 200' 0 200' SEE BELOW SEE EXHIBIT 4 OF 4 400' PROJECT ID 13 EXHIBIT 3 OF 4 DATE PLOTTED=>20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:16 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE => 13_OPT 1(3 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn 13_OPT 1(4 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn LL m_ x x w LU LU N SEE ABOVE 8 ,. 5 SB OFF RAMP 4 ; NB ON RAMP - 41 Jim SB NB 1-215 LEGEND f1 ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING - STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION <s'*'ti. STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 414 SB ON RAMP Lu J4r m SB OFF RAMP NB ON R"AP 200' 0 200' JCL EILLV YY 400' PROJECT ID 13 EXHIBIT 4 OF 4 DATE PLOTTED=>20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:16 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE => 13_OPT 1(4 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn 16-RCTC_Exh.dgn LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 415 200' o 200' 400' PROJECT ID 16 DATE PLOTTED => 22-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 09:31 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE _> 16-RCTC_Exh.d9n 18-RCTC_Exh.dgn LEGEND ROW IMPACTS RETAINING WALL WIDENING STRUCTURE RAMP REALIGNMENT ROADWAY EXCAVATION STREET IMPROVEMENTS SIGNALIZATION 416 200' 0 200' 400' PROJECT ID 18 DATE PLOTTED => 20-FEB-2018 TIME PLOTTED => 13:16 USERNAME=>casasr DGN FILE _> 18-RCTC_Exh.dgn 417 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis APPENDIX B - CONCEPTUAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TABLES B-1 418 Project #1: 1-15 NB, from SR-79 S On -Ramp to Winchester Rd Off -Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $665,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $6,173,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $1,205,850 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Speciality Items _ $96,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,105,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $462,243 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $924,485 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $462,243 $4,437,528 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $20,207,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $35,738,348 SUPPORT COSTS $12,508,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $48,246,000 419 Summary of Quantities Project #1: 1-15 NB, from SR-79 S On -Ramp to Winchester Rd Off -Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Rancho California) 0.-560 20-235 7831.70 CY $15.00 $117,475.56 Roadway Excavation (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California) 0-202 0-200 13690.93 CY $15.00 $205,363.89 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Rancho California) 655 0-185 22810.22 CY $15.00 $342,153.33 Payment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 14605.00 10.00 16227.78 SQYD $36.38 $590,366.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) 14605.00 22.00 8330.26 CY $72.10 $600,611.69 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) 14605.00 22.00 5823.74 TON $85.00 $495,018.22 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 14605.00 22.00 10710.33 CY $270.00 $2,891,790.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 1415.00 8.00 1257.78 SQYD $36.38 $45,757.96 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 1415.00 38.00 1394.04 CY $72.10 $100,510.07 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 1415.00 38.00 974.58 TON $85.00 $82,839.41 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 1415.00 38.00 1792.33 CY $270.00 $483,930.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 800.00 8.00 711.11 SQYD $36.38 $25,870.22 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 800.00 46.00 954.07 CY $72.10 $68,788.74 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 800.00 46.00 667.00 TON $85.00 $56,695.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 800.00 46.00 1226.67 CY $270.00 $331,200.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 835.00 8.00 742.22 SQYD $36.38 $27,002.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 835.00 36.00 779.33 CY $72.10 $56,189.93 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 835.00 36.00 544.84 TON $85.00 $46,311.19 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 835.00 36.00 1002.00 CY $270.00 $270,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Speciality Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) 8625.00 1597.41 SQFT $60.00 $95,844.44 Retaing wall height 5' Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) 14605.00 14605.00 LF $0.65 $9,493.25 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) 29210.00 29210.00 LF $2.41 $70,396.10 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 4252.00 4252.00 LF $0.65 $2,763.80 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 4252.00 4252.00 LF $2.41 $10,247.32 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 2027.00 2027.00 LF $0.65 $1,317.55 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 2027.00 2027.00 LF $2.41 $4,885.07 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 1870.00 1870.00 LF $0.65 $1,215.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 1870.00 1870.00 LF $2.41 $4,506.70 Reconstruct Sign Structure 4.00 EA $200,000.00 $800,000.00 IL Structure Items Santiago Rd Bridge -Tie -back 70.00 22.00 1540.00 SQ FT $375.00 $577,500.00 Rancho Califnoria Rd Bridge Replacement 122.00 262.00 31964.00 SQ FT $250.00 $7,991,000.00 Drainge Underpass Widening 58.00 22.00 1276.00 SQ FT $375.00 $478,500.00 Overland Rd Bridge Replacement 62.00 720.00 44640.00 SQ FT $250.00 $11,160,000.00 Ill. Right of Way L Roadway Items $8,039,000.00 Earthwork $665,000.00 Payment Structural Section $6,173,000.00 Speciality Items $96,000.00 Traffic Items $1,105,000.00 IL Structural Items $20,207,000.00 III. Right of Way $0.00 420 Project #1: 1-15 NB at Rancho California Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $665,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $1,596,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $375,300 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Speciallb Items _ $16,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $225,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $143,865 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $287,730 10 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $143,865 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,381,104 40 % of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $7,991,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12,824,864 SUPPORT COSTS $4,489,000 SUBTOTAL PROJECT COSTS $17,314,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $12,009,000.00 $12,009,000.00 421 Summary of Quantities Project #1: 1-15 NB at Rancho California Subtotal Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Rancho California) 0.-560 20-235 7831.70 CY $15.00 $117,475.56 Roadway Excavation (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California) 0-202 0-200 13690.93 CY $15.00 $205,363.89 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Rancho California) 655 0-185 22810.22 CY $15.00 $342,153.33 Payment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 1415.00 8.00 1257.78 SQYD $36.38 $45,757.96 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 1415.00 38.00 1394.04 CY $72.10 $100,510.07 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 1415.00 38.00 974.58 TON $85.00 $82,839.41 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 1415.00 38.00 1792.33 CY $270.00 $483,930.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 800.00 8.00 711.11 SQYD $36.38 $25,870.22 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 800.00 46.00 954.07 CY $72.10 $68,788.74 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 800.00 46.00 667.00 TON $85.00 $56,695.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 800.00 46.00 1226.67 CY $270.00 $331,200.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 835.00 8.00 742.22 SQYD $36.38 $27,002.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 835.00 36.00 779.33 CY $72.10 $56,189.93 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 835.00 36.00 544.84 TON $85.00 $46,311.19 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 835.00 36.00 1002.00 CY $270.00 $270,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Speciality Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) 1400.00 259.26 SQFT $60.00 $15,555.56 Retaing wall height 5' Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) $0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 4252.00 4252.00 LF $0.65 $2,763.80 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd) 4252.00 4252.00 LF $2.41 $10,247.32 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 2027.00 2027.00 LF $0.65 $1,317.55 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd) 2027.00 2027.00 LF $2.41 $4,885.07 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 1870.00 1870.00 LF $0.65 $1,215.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia) 1870.00 1870.00 LF $2.41 $4,506.70 Reconstruct Sign Structure $0.00 IL Structure Items Santiago Rd Bridge -Tie -back $0.00 Rancho Califnoria Rd Bridge Replacement 122.00 262.00 31964.00 SQ FT $250.00 $7,991,000.00 Drainge Underpass Widening $0.00 Overland Rd Bridge Replacement $0.00 Ill. Right of Way L Roadway Items $2,502,000.00 Earthwork $665,000.00 Payment Structural Section $1,596,000.00 Speciality Items $16,000.00 Traffic Items $225,000.00 IL Structural Items $7,991,000.00 III. Right of Way $0.00 422 Project #3: 1-15 NB, from Clinton Keith Rd. On -ramp to Baxter Rd. Off -Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $2,239,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,328,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $809,700 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $35,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $796,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $310,385 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $620,770 $310,385 $2,979,696 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $360,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS SUPPORT COSTS TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $10,788,936 $3,776,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs $14,565,000 423 Summary of Quantities Project #3: 1-15 NB, from Clinton Keith Rd. On -ramp to Baxter Rd. Off -Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Baxter Rd) 1175.00 0-185 14.00 50359.04 CY $15.00 $755,385.56 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Baxter Rd) 860.00 0-200 28.00 98907.41 CY $15.00 $1,483,611.11 Pavement Structural Section $0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 4840.00 10.00 5377.78 SQYD $36.38 $195,643.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) 4840.00 22.00 2760.59 CY $72.10 $199,038.73 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) 4840.00 22.00 1929.95 TON $85.00 $164,045.75 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 4840.00 22.00 3549.33 CY $270.00 $958,320.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1220.00 8.00 1084.44 SQYD $36.38 $39,452.09 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase(NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1220.00 24.00 759.11 CY $72.10 $54,731.91 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1220.00 24.00 530.70 TON $85.00 $45,109.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1220.00 24.00 976.00 CY $270.00 $263,520.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 8.00 1097.78 SQYD $36.38 $39,937.16 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 24.00 768.44 CY $72.10 $55,404.84 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 24.00 537.23 TON $85.00 $45,664.13 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 24.00 988.00 CY $270.00 $266,760.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Specialty Items $0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) 1055.00 586.11 SQFT $60.00 $35,166.67 Retaining wall height 5' Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 7.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $350,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) 4840.00 4840.00 LF $0.65 $3,146.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) 9680.00 9680.00 LF $2.41 $23,328.80 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1475.00 1475.00 LF $0.65 $958.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1475.00 1475.00 LF $2.41 $3,554.75 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 1235.00 LF $0.65 $802.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 1235.00 LF $2.41 $2,976.35 Reconstruct Sign Structure 2.00 EA $200,000.00 $400,000.00 IL Structure Items Baxter Rd Bridge -Tie -back 60.00 16.00 960.00 SQFT $375.00 $360,000.00 III. Right of Way I. Roadway Items $5,398,000.00 Earthwork $2,239,000.00 Pavement Structural Section $2,328,000.00 Specialty Items $35,000.00 Traffic Items $796,000.00 II. Structural Items $360,000.00 Ill. Right of Way $0.00 424 Project #3: 1-15 NB at Baxter Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $2,239,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $811,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $573,000 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $0 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $770,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $219,650 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $439,300 10 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $219,650 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,108,640 40 % of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $360,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $7,740,240 SUPPORT COSTS $2,709,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $10,449,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,159,000.00 $7,159,000.00 425 Summary of Quantities Project #3: 1-15 NB at Baxter Subtotal Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Baxter Rd) 1175.00 0-185 14.00 50359.04 CY $15.00 $755,385.56 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Baxter Rd) 860.00 0-200 28.00 98907.41 CY $15.00 $1,483,611.11 Pavement Structural Section $0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1220.00 8.00 1084.44 SQYD $36.38 $39,452.09 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase(NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1220.00 24.00 759.11 CY $72.10 $54,731.91 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1220.00 24.00 530.70 TON $85.00 $45,109.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1220.00 24.00 976.00 CY $270.00 $263,520.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 8.00 1097.78 SQYD $36.38 $39,937.16 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 24.00 768.44 CY $72.10 $55,404.84 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 24.00 537.23 TON $85.00 $45,664.13 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 24.00 988.00 CY $270.00 $266,760.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Specialty Items $0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) $0.00 Retaining wall height 5' Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 7.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $350,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) $0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1475.00 1475.00 LF $0.65 $958.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter) 1475.00 1475.00 LF $2.41 $3,554.75 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 1235.00 LF $0.65 $802.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter) 1235.00 1235.00 LF $2.41 $2,976.35 Reconstruct Sign Structure 2.00 EA $200,000.00 $400,000.00 IL Structure Items Baxter Rd Bridge -Tie -back 60.00 16.00 960.00 SQFT $375.00 $360,000.00 III. Right of Way I. Roadway Items $3,820,000.00 Earthwork $2,239,000.00 Pavement Structural Section $811,000.00 Specialty Items $0.00 Traffic Items $770,000.00 II. Structural Items $360,000.00 Ill. Right of Way $0.00 426 Project #7, 1-15 SB, from Cajalco Rd On -Ramp to Indian Truck Trail On -Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $1,510,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $11,919,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $2,251,950 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $304,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,280,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $863,248 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION9: MOBILIZATION $1,726,495 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $863,248 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $8,287,176 40% of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $4,310,000 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS Right of Way Acquisition $375,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $33,690,116 SUPPORT COSTS $11,792,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $45,482,000 427 Summary of Quantities Project #7, I-15 SB, from Cajalco Rd On -Ramp to Indian Truck Trail On -Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB On Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Roadway Excavation (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Roadway Excavation (West of SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Roadway Excavation (West of SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Removal of Existing Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Thermoplastic Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Reconstruct Sign Structure IL Structure Items Indian Truck Trail Bridge Widening Temescal Canyon OC Widening PM 31.90 Mayhew Wash Bridge Widening PM 31.97 Temescal Canyon Road UC Widening PM 33.25 Brown Canyon Wash Bridge Widening PM 34.72 Dos Lagos Bridge Widening Bedford Wash Bridge Widening 111. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition 840.00 0-186 1100.00 11-167 1735 0-162 640.00 36-70 830.00 14-102 860.00 12-125 520.00 0-85 950.00 0-90 29203.00 10.00 29203.00 22.00 29203.00 22.00 29203.00 22.00 215.00 8.00 215.00 26.00 215.00 26.00 215.00 26.00 1220.00 8.00 1220.00 52.00 1220.00 52.00 1220.00 52.00 955.00 8.00 955.00 36.00 955.00 36.00 955.00 36.00 1165.00 8.00 1165.00 34.00 1165.00 34.00 1165.00 34.00 740.00 8.00 740.00 38.00 740.00 38.00 740.00 38.00 1050.00 8.00 1050.00 36.00 1050.00 36.00 1050.00 36.00 1095.00 14010.00 29203.00 58406.00 2386.00 2386.00 3870.00 3870.00 2035.00 2035.00 26170.00 26170.00 1491.00 1491.00 3290.00 3290.00 136.00 14.00 160.00 14.00 145.00 14.00 62.00 14.00 78.00 14.00 140.00 14.00 100.00 14.00 150.00 50.00 I. Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items Il. Structural Items III. Right of Way 0-12 0-11 0-7 0-2 0-3 0-2 0-2 0-2 $15,013,000.00 $1,510,000.00 $11,919,000.00 $304,000.00 $1,280,000.00 $4,310,000.00 $375,000.00 36720.00 36410.00 10460.52 2587.11 5971.00 4170.44 1586.07 2776.52 32447.78 16656.53 11644.70 21415.53 191.11 144.93 101.32 186.33 1084.44 1644.74 1149.85 2114.67 848.89 891.33 623.14 1146.00 1035.56 1026.93 717.93 1320.33 657.78 729.04 509.68 937.33 933.33 980.00 685.13 1260.00 1095.00 4792.22 CY CY CY CY CY CY CY CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY LF SQFT 12.00 PER CORNER 29203.00 58406.00 2386.00 2386.00 3870.00 3870.00 2035.00 2035.00 26170.00 26170.00 1491.00 1491.00 3290.00 3290.00 2.00 1904.00 2240.00 2030.00 868.00 1092.00 1960.00 1400.00 7500.00 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF SQFT SQFT SQFT SQFT SQ FT SQ FT SQFT SQFT $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $550,800.00 $546,150.00 $156,907.78 $38,806.67 $89,565.00 $62,556.67 $23,791.11 $41,647.78 $1,180,450.16 $1,200,935.52 $989,799.18 $5,782,194.00 $6,952.62 $10,449.16 $8,612.09 $50,310.00 $39,452.09 $118,585.81 $97,737.25 $570,960.00 $30,882.58 $64,265.13 $52,966.69 $309,420.00 $37,673.51 $74,041.36 $61,024.16 $356,490.00 $23,929.96 $52,563.57 $43,322.38 $253,080.00 $33,954.67 $70,658.00 $58,235.63 $340,200.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 52' Lane plus shoulder at 52' Lane plus shoulder at 52' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 38 Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Lane plus shoulder at 36' $15.00 $16,425.00 $60.00 $287,533.33 Retaining wall height 5' $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $200,000.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $50.00 $600,000.00 $18,981.95 $140,758.46 $1,550.90 $5,750.26 $2,515.50 $9,326.70 $1,322.75 $4,904.35 $17,010.50 $63,069.70 $969.15 $3,593.31 $2,138.50 $7,928.90 $400,000.00 $714,000.00 $840,000.00 $761,250.00 $325,500.00 $409,500.00 $735,000.00 $525,000.00 $375,000.00 with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Project #7, 1-15 SB at Temescal Canyon Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $191,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $987,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $375,150 Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $43,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,280,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $143,808 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $287,615 10 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $143,808 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,380,552 40 % of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $840,000 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS Right o1 Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $5,671,932 SUPPORT COSTS $1,985,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $7,657,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to he reduced from Total Project Costs $17,897,000.00 $7,657,000.00 429 Summary of Quantities Project #7, 1-15 SB at Temescal Canyon Subtotal Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB On Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Roadway Excavation (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Roadway Excavation (West of SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Roadway Excavation (West of SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Removal of Existing Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Thermoplastic Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos) Reconstruct Sign Structure H. Structure Items Indian Truck Trail Bridge Widening Temescal Canyon OC Widening PM 31.90 Mayhew Wash Bridge Widening PM 31.97 Temescal Canyon Road UC Widening PM 33.25 Brown Canyon Wash Bridge Widening PM 34.72 Dos Lagos Bridge Widening Bedford Wash Bridge Widening 111. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition 640.00 830.00 860.00 955.00 955.00 955.00 955.00 1165.00 1165.00 1165.00 1165.00 1300.00 2035.00 2035.00 26170.00 26170.00 160.00 I. Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items Il. Structural Items III. Right of Way 36-70 14-102 12-125 8.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 8.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 14.00 0-2 0-3 0-2 $1,507,000.00 $191,000.00 $987,000.00 $43,000.00 $286,000.00 $840,000.00 $0.00 2587.11 5971.00 4170.44 CY CY CY 848.89 SQYD 891.33 CY 623.14 TON 1146.00 CY 1035.56 SQYD 1026.93 CY 717.93 TON 1320.33 CY 722.22 SQFT 4.00 PER CORNER 2035.00 2035.00 26170.00 26170.00 2240.00 LF LF LF LF SQFT $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38,806.67 $89,565.00 $62,556.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,882.58 $64,265.13 $52,966.69 $309,420.00 $37,673.51 $74,041.36 $61,024.16 $356,490.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 52' Lane plus shoulder at 52' Lane plus shoulder at 52' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 38 Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Lane plus shoulder at 36' Lane plus shoulder at 36' $0.00 $60.00 $43,333.33 Retaining wall height 5' $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $375.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,322.75 $4,904.35 $17,010.50 $63,069.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $840,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $o.00 with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Project #8, 1-15 SB, from El Cerrito Rd Off -Ramp to Cajalco Rd Off -Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $1,153,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $3,814,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $857,700 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Speciality Items _ $288,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $463,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $328,785 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $657,570 $328,785 $3,156,336 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $975,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12,022,176 SUPPORT COSTS $4,208,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $16,230,000 431 Summary of Quantities Project #8, 1-15 SB, from El Cerrito Rd Off -Ramp to Cajalco Rd Off -Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 700.00 0-320 0-12 61799.11 CY $15.00 $926,986.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1000.00 0-175 0-5 10822.78 CY $15.00 $162,341.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) 595.00 0-78 0-2 1750.96 CY $15.00 $26,264.44 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) 780.00 8-84 0-2 2461.04 CY $15.00 $36,915.56 Payment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 6907.00 14.00 10744.22 SQYD $36.38 $390,874.80 Existing shoulders at 14' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) 6907.00 22.00 3939.55 CY $72.10 $284,041.42 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) 6907.00 22.00 2754.17 TON $85.00 $234,104.13 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 6907.00 22.00 5065.13 CY $270.00 $1,367,586.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 468.00 10.00 520.00 SQYD $36.38 $18,917.60 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 468.00 24.00 291.20 CY $72.10 $20,995.52 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 468.00 24.00 203.58 TON $85.00 $17,304.30 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 468.00 24.00 374.40 CY $270.00 $101,088.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1225.00 8.00 1088.89 SQYD $36.38 $39,613.78 Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1225.00 40.00 1270.37 CY $72.10 $91,593.70 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1225.00 40.00 888.13 TON $85.00 $75,490.63 Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1225.00 40.00 1633.33 CY $270.00 $441,000.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) 820.00 8.00 728.89 SQYD $36.38 $26,516.98 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) 820.00 34.00 722.81 CY $72.10 $52,114.95 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) 820.00 34.00 505.33 TON $85.00 $42,952.63 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) 820.00 34.00 929.33 CY $270.00 $250,920.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) 1060.00 10.00 1177.78 CY $36.38 $42,847.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) 1060.00 24.00 659.56 TON $72.10 $47,553.96 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) 1060.00 24.00 461.10 LF $85.00 $39,193.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) 1060.00 24.00 848.00 LF $270.00 $228,960.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Speciality Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) 16665.00 4792.22 SQFT $60.00 $287,533.33 Retaing wall height 5' Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) 6907.00 6907.00 LF $0.65 $4,489.55 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) 13814.00 13814.00 LF $2.41 $33,291.74 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 936.00 936.00 LF $0.65 $608.40 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 936.00 936.00 LF $2.41 $2,255.76 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 3215.00 3215.00 LF $0.65 $2,089.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 3215.00 3215.00 LF $2.41 $7,748.15 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) 1440.00 1440.00 LF $0.65 $936.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) 1440.00 1440.00 LF $2.41 $3,470.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) 2640.00 2640.00 LF $0.65 $1,716.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) 2640.00 2640.00 LF $2.41 $6,362.40 Reconstruct Sign Structure 0.00 LF $200,000.00 $0.00 IL Structure Items Cajalco Road OC Tie Back 40.00 16.00 640.00 SQFT $375.00 $240,000.00 El Cerrito UC Widening 140.00 14.00 1960.00 SQFT $375.00 $735,000.00 Ill. Right of Way I. Roadway Items $5,718,000.00 Earthwork $1,153,000.00 Payment Structural Section $3,814,000.00 Speciality Items $288,000.00 Traffic Items $463,000.00 II. Structural Items $975,000.00 Ill. Right of Way $0.00 432 Project #8, 1-15 SB at Cajalco Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $1,089,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $806,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $316,200 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Speciallb Items _ $0 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $213,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $121,210 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $242,420 10 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $121,210 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,163,616 40 % of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $240,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $4,312,656 SUPPORT COSTS $1,509,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $5,822,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $44,257,000.00 $5,822,000.00 433 Summary of Quantities Project #8, 1-15 SB at Cajalco Subtotal Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 700.00 0-320 0-12 61799.11 CY $15.00 $926,986.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1000.00 0-175 0-5 10822.78 CY $15.00 $162,341.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Payment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) $0.00 Existing shoulders at 14' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 468.00 10.00 520.00 SQYD $36.38 $18,917.60 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 468.00 24.00 291.20 CY $72.10 $20,995.52 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 468.00 24.00 203.58 TON $85.00 $17,304.30 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 468.00 24.00 374.40 CY $270.00 $101,088.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1225.00 8.00 1088.89 SQYD $36.38 $39,613.78 Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1225.00 40.00 1270.37 CY $72.10 $91,593.70 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1225.00 40.00 888.13 TON $85.00 $75,490.63 Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 1225.00 40.00 1633.33 CY $270.00 $441,000.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Speciality Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) $0.00 Retaing wall height 5' Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) $0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 936.00 936.00 LF $0.65 $608.40 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco) 936.00 936.00 LF $2.41 $2,255.76 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 3215.00 3215.00 LF $0.65 $2,089.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco) 3215.00 3215.00 LF $2.41 $7,748.15 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito) $0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure 0.00 LF $200,000.00 $0.00 IL Structure Items Cajalco Road OC Tie Back 40.00 16.00 640.00 SOFT $375.00 $240,000.00 El Cerrito UC Widening $0.00 Ill. Right of Way I. Roadway Items $2,108,000.00 Earthwork $1,089,000.00 Payment Structural Section $806,000.00 Speciality Items $0.00 Traffic Items $213,000.00 II. Structural Items $240,000.00 Ill. Right of Way $0.00 434 Project #9, SR-60 EB, from Rubidoux Blvd. On -Ramp to Main St Off -Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $311,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $4,621,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $935,550 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Speciality Items _ $227,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,078,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $358,628 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $717,255 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $358,628 $3,442,824 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $17,753,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $29,802,884 SUPPORT COSTS $10,431,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $40,234,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs 435 Summary of Quantities Project #9, SR-60 EB, from Rubidoux Blvd. On -Ramp to Main St Off -Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (EB on Ramp Market St) Roadway Excavation (EB off Ramp Market St) Payment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (EB On Ramp Main St) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB On Ramp Main St) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB On Ramp Main St) Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB On Ramp Main St) Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Off Ramp Main St) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Off Ramp Main St) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Off Ramp Main St) Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement t (EB Off Ramp Main St) Remove Concrete Pavement (EB on Ramp Market St) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB on Ramp Market St) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB on Ramp Market St) Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB on Ramp Market St) Remove Concrete Pavement (EB off Ramp Market St) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB off Ramp Market St) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB off Ramp Market St) Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB off Ramp Market St) Speciality Items Remove Sound Wall Sound Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (EB On Ramp Main St) Thermoplastic Striping (EB On Ramp Main St) Removal of Existing Striping (EB Off Ramp Main St) Thermoplastic Striping (EB Off Ramp Main St) Removal of Existing Striping (EB on Ramp Market St) Thermoplastic Striping (EB on Ramp Market St) Removal of Existing Striping (EB off Ramp Market St) Thermoplastic Striping (EB off Ramp Market St) Reconstruct Sign Structure IL Structure Items Orange St Bridge Replacement Main St Bridfge Replacement Fairmount Blvd Bridge Widening Market St Bridge Widening Santa Ana River Bridge Widening Hall Ave Bridge Replacement Ill. Right of Way 955.00 620.00 11025.00 11025.00 11025.00 11025.00 535.00 535.00 535.00 535.00 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 1340.00 1340.00 1340.00 1340.00 1920.00 1920.00 3885.00 11025.00 22050.00 865.00 865.00 1400.00 1400.00 1640.00 1640.00 1850.00 1850.00 56.00 72.00 115.00 278.00 1120.00 40.00 I. Roadway Items Earthwork Payment Structural Section Speciallty Items Traffic Items IL Structural items III. Right of Way 17-48 7-65 10.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 8.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 8.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 8.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 8.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 220.00 210.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 295.00 0-10 0-15 $6,237,000.00 $311,000.00 $4, 621,000.00 $227,000.00 $1,078,000.00 $17,753,000.00 $0.00 10247.78 10493.89 12250.00 6288.33 4396.22 8085.00 475.56 443.85 310.30 570.67 622.22 362.96 253.75 466.67 800.00 560.00 391.50 720.00 1191.11 833.78 582.90 1072.00 1920.00 1920.00 2158.33 CY CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY LF SQFT SQFT 8.00 PER CORNER 11025.00 22050.00 865.00 865.00 1400.00 1400.00 1640.00 1640.00 1850.00 1850.00 3.00 12320.00 15120.00 1610.00 3892.00 15680.00 11800.00 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA SQFT SQFT SQFT SQFT SQ FT SQ FT $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $0.00 $27.00 $23.98 $60.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $200,000.00 $250.00 $250.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $250.00 $153,716.67 $157,408.33 $445,655.00 Existing shoulders at 10' $453,388.83 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $373,678.59 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $2,182,950.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $17,300.71 Existing shoulders at 8' $32,001.72 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $26,375.50 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $154,080.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $22,636.44 Existing shoulders at 8' $26,169.63 Lane plus shoulder at 20' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $21,568.75 Lane plus shoulder at 20' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $126,000.00 Lane plus shoulder at 20' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $29,104.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $40,376.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $33,277.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $194,400.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $43,332.62 Existing shoulders at 8' $60,115.38 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $49,546.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $289,440.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $51,840.00 $46,041.60 $129,500.00 $400,000.00 $7,166.25 $53,140.50 $562.25 $2,084.65 $910.00 $3,374.00 $1, 066.00 $3,952.40 $1,202.50 $4,458.50 $600,000.00 $3,080,000.00 $3,780,000.00 $603,750.00 $1,459,500.00 $5,880,000.00 $2,950,000.00 6' High sound wall Retaining wall height 5' 436 Project #10, 1-215 NB, from Box Springs Rd. On -Ramp to Martin Luther King Jr. On -Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $1,077,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $4,546,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $1,244,400 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $1,369,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,304,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $477,020 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $954,040 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $477,020 $4,579,392 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $2,546,000 Ill. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Acquisition $1,065,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $19,638,872 SUPPORT COSTS $6,874,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $26,513,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs 437 Summary of Quantities Project #10, 1-215 NB, from Box Springs Rd. On -Ramp to Martin Luther King Jr. On -Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (New Road) Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp Central ) Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp Central) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Central) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Central) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Central) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Central) Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Central) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp Central) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp Central) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Central) Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King) Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King) Specialty Items Remove Sound Wall Sound Wall Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Central) Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Central) Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp Central) Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp Central) Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King) Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King) Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King) Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King) Reconstruct Sign Structure A Structure Items Central Bridge Widening Martin Luther King Widening Canyon Crest Widening Ill. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 Right of Way Acquisition #2 1891.00 20.00 0-5 7016.11 CY $15.00 $105,241.67 790.00 0-85 0-19 30291.63 CY $15.00 $454,374.44 647 0-100 0-20 34520.00 CY $15.00 $517,800.00 $0.00 7570.00 10.00 8411.11 SQYD $36.38 $305,996.22 7570.00 22.00 4317.70 CY $72.10 $311,306.44 7570.00 22.00 3018.54 TON $85.00 $256,575.69 7570.00 22.00 5551.33 CY $270.00 $1,498,860.00 1350.00 8.00 1200.00 SQYD $36.38 $43,656.00 1350.00 38.00 1330.00 CY $72.10 $95,893.00 1350.00 38.00 929.81 TON $85.00 $79,034.06 1350.00 38.00 1710.00 CY $270.00 $461,700.00 755.00 8.00 671.11 SQYD $36.38 $24,415.02 755.00 30.00 587.22 CY $72.10 $42,338.72 755.00 30.00 410.53 TON $85.00 $34,895.16 755.00 30.00 755.00 CY $270.00 $203,850.00 1335.00 8.00 1186.67 SQYD $36.38 $43,170.93 1335.00 38.00 1315.22 CY $72.10 $94,827.52 1335.00 38.00 919.48 TON $85.00 $78,155.91 1335.00 38.00 1691.00 CY $270.00 $456,570.00 930.00 8.00 826.67 SQYD $36.38 $30,074.13 930.00 42.00 1012.67 CY $72.10 $73,013.27 930.00 42.00 707.96 TON $85.00 $60,176.81 930.00 42.00 1302.00 CY $270.00 $351,540.00 $0.00 1000.00 1000.00 LF $27.00 $27,000.00 1000.00 1000.00 SQFT $23.98 $23,980.00 7430.00 7430.00 LF $15.00 $111,450.00 410.00 501.11 SQFT $80.00 $40,088.89 4100.00 6833.33 SQFT $90.00 $615,000.00 2920.00 5515.56 SQFT $100.00 $551,555.56 4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 13560.00 13560.00 LF $0.65 $8,814.00 27120.00 27120.00 LF $2.41 $65,359.20 2438.00 2438.00 LF $0.65 $1,584.70 2438.00 2438.00 LF $2.41 $5,875.58 1345.00 1345.00 LF $0.65 $874.25 1345.00 1345.00 LF $2.41 $3,241.45 3425.00 3425.00 LF $0.65 $2,226.25 3425.00 3425.00 LF $2.41 $8,254.25 2461.00 2461.00 LF $0.65 $1,599.65 2461.00 2461.00 LF $2.41 $5,931.01 5.00 EA $200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 150.00 14.00 2100.00 SQFT $375.00 $787,500.00 175.00 14.00 2450.00 SQFT $375.00 $918,750.00 160.00 14.00 2240.00 SQFT $375.00 $840,000.00 1950.00 10.00 19500.00 SQFT $50.00 $975,000.00 360.00 5.00 1800.00 SQFT $50.00 $90,000.00 I. Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items II. Structural Items Ill. Right of Way $8,296,000.00 $1,077,000.00 $4,546,000.00 $1,369,000.00 $1,304,000.00 $2,546,000.00 $1,065,000.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 30' Lane plus shoulder at 30' Lane plus shoulder at 30' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38" Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 42' Lane plus shoulder at 42' Lane plus shoulder at 42' 6' High sound wall Retaining wall height 11' Retaining wall height 15' Retaining wall height 17' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' 438 Project #IOC, 1-215 NB, Martin Luther King Off Ramp to SR-91 ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $1,434,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $3,172,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $1,193,850 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $1,888,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,465,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $457,643 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $915,285 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $457,643 $4,393,368 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $21,655,000 Ill. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Acquisition $3,768,750 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $40,800,538 SUPPORT COSTS $14,280,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $55,081,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs 439 Summary of Quantities Project #10C, 1-215 NB, Martin Luther King Off Ramp to SR-91 Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp University) Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp University) Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp 3rd St) Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp 3rd St) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp University) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp University) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp University) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp University) Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp University) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp University) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp University) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Central) Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp 3rd St) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Off Ramp 3rd St) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp 3rd St) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp 3rd St) Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp 3rd St) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp 3rd St) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp 3rd St) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp 3rd St) Specialty Items Remove Sound Wall Sound Wall Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp University) Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp University) Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp University) Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp University) Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp 3rd St) Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp 3rd St) Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp 3rd St) Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp 3rd St) Reconstruct Sign Structure A Structure Items University Ave Bridge Widening Iowa Ave Bridge Replacement 3rd St Bridge Replacement Ill. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 Right of Way Acquisition #2 276.00 0-410 600 436.00 5867.00 5867.00 5867.00 5867.00 610.00 610.00 610.00 610.00 936.00 936.00 936.00 936.00 850.00 850.00 850.00 850.00 610.00 610.00 610.00 610.00 2633.00 2633.00 3444.00 34336.00 3444.00 11735.00 11735.00 2110.00 2110.00 2810.00 2810.00 2660.00 2660.00 1830.00 1830.00 108.00 400.00 256.00 168 6-170 6-34 6-38 10.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 8.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 8.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 8.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 8.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 14.00 120.00 142.00 0-18 0-5 0-6 0-15 28446.67 4946.67 5928.89 4478.89 6518.89 3346.36 2339.47 4302.47 542.22 664.22 464.36 854.00 832.00 630.93 441.09 811.20 755.56 749.26 523.81 963.33 542.22 537.70 375.91 691.33 2633.00 2633.00 3444.00 19075.56 5740.00 CY CY CY CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY LF SQFT LF SQFT SQFT 8.00 PER CORNER 11735.00 LF 11735.00 LF 2110.00 LF 2110.00 LF 2810.00 LF 2810.00 LF 2660.00 LF 2660.00 LF 1830.00 LF 1830.00 LF 5.00 EA 1512.00 SQFT 48000.00 SQFT 36352.00 SQFT 1075.00 5.00 5375.00 SQFT 500.00 10.00 PER HOUSE L Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items II. Structural Items Ill. Right of Way $7,959,000.00 $1,434,000.00 $3,172,000.00 $1,888,000.00 $1,465,000.00 $21,655,000.00 $3,768,750.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $0.00 $27.00 $23.98 $27.00 $60.00 $90.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $200,000.00 $375.00 $250.00 $250.00 $50.00 $350,000.00 $426,700.00 $74,200.00 $88,933.33 $67,183.33 $237,157.18 $241,272.77 $198,854.63 $1,161,666.00 $19,726.04 $47,890.42 $39,470.81 $230,580.00 $30,268.16 $45,490.29 $37,492.65 $219,024.00 $27,487.11 $54,021.59 $44,524.06 $260,100.00 $19,726.04 $38,768.44 $31,952.56 $186,660.00 $71,091.00 $63,139.34 $92,988.00 $1,144,533.33 $516,600.00 $400,000.00 $7,627.75 $28,281.35 $1,371.50 $5,085.10 $1,826.50 $6,772.10 $1, 729.00 $6,410.60 $1,189.50 $4,410.30 $1,000,000.00 $567,000.00 $12,000,000.00 $9,088,000.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 42' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' 6' High sound wall Retaining wall height 5' Retaining wall height 15' $268,750.00 $3,500,000.00 $350,000 per property 440 Project #11, 1-215 NB, from Center St. off -Ramp to County Line/Iowa Ave. ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $1,388,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,919,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $836,700 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $422,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $849,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $320,735 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $641,470 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $320,735 $3,079,056 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $25,566,000 Ill. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Acquisition $400,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $36,742,696 SUPPORT COSTS $12,860,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $49,603,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs 441 Summary of Quantities Project #11, 1-215 NB, from Center St off -Ramp to County Line/Iowa Ave. Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 0-236 0+56 0-6 1596.67 CY $15.00 $23,950.00 Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp La Cadena) 646.00 0-260 0-12 37572.44 CY $15.00 $563,586.67 Roadway Excavation (NB loop off Ramp La Cadena) 260 285.00 0-18 48333.33 CY $15.00 $725,000.00 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp La Cadena) 0-430' 0-240 0-5 5037.41 CY $15.00 $75,561.11 Pavement Structural Section $0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 5915.00 10.00 6572.22 SQYD $36.38 $239,097.44 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) 5915.00 22.00 3373.74 CY $72.10 $243,246.71 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) 5915.00 22.00 2358.61 TON $85.00 $200,481.53 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 5915.00 22.00 4337.67 CY $270.00 $1,171,170.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 477.00 8.00 424.00 SQYD $36.38 $15,425.12 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 477.00 48.00 593.60 CY $72.10 $42,798.56 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 477.00 48.00 414.99 TON $85.00 $35,274.15 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 477.00 48.00 763.20 CY $270.00 $206,064.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena) 1170.00 8.00 1040.00 SQYD $36.38 $37,835.20 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp La Cadena) 1170.00 30.00 910.00 CY $72.10 $65,611.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp La Cadena) 1170.00 30.00 636.19 TON $85.00 $54,075.94 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena) 1170.00 30.00 1170.00 CY $270.00 $315,900.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena) 885.00 8.00 786.67 SQYD $36.38 $28,618.93 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp La Cadena) 885.00 24.00 550.67 CY $72.10 $39,703.07 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp La Cadena) 885.00 24.00 384.98 TON $85.00 $32,722.88 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena) 885.00 24.00 708.00 CY $270.00 $191,160.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall 1020.00 1020.00 LF $15.00 $15,300.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) 1020.00 1133.33 SQFT $80.00 $90,666.67 Retaining wall height 10' Concrete Barrier (Type 60) 3545.00 3545.00 LF $82.40 $292,108.00 Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) 5915.00 5915.00 LF $0.65 $3,844.75 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) 11830.00 11830.00 LF $2.41 $28,510.30 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 1170.00 1170.00 LF $0.65 $760.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 1170.00 1170.00 LF $2.41 $2,819.70 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena) 2340.00 2340.00 LF $0.65 $1,521.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena) 2340.00 2340.00 LF $2.41 $5,639.40 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena) 1770.00 1770.00 LF $0.65 $1,150.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena) 1770.00 1770.00 LF $2.41 $4,265.70 Reconstruct Sign Structure 2.00 EA $200,000.00 $400,000.00 IL Structure Items Center St Bridge Replacement 303.00 48.00 14544.00 SQFT $250.00 $3,636,000.00 Iowa St Bridge Replacement 232.00 60.00 13920.00 SQFT $250.00 $3,480,000.00 Railroad Bridge Replacement 410.00 120.00 49200.00 SQFT $375.00 $18,450,000.00 Steel Truss Bridge- 4 track railroad III. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 1600.00 5.00 8000.00 SQFT $50.00 $400,000.00 I. Roadway Items $5,578,000.00 Earthwork $1,388,000.00 Pavement Structural Section $2,919,000.00 Specialty Items $422,000.00 Traffic Items $849,000.00 II. Structural Items $25,566,000.00 Ill. Right of Way $400,000.00 442 Project #11, 1-215 NB at Highgrove/Center Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $24,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $300,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $142,800 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $24,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $604,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $54,740 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $109,480 10 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $54,740 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $525,504 40 % of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $3,636,000 111. RIGHT OF WAY Right o1 Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $5,475,264 SUPPORT COSTS $1,916,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $7,391,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $17,897,000.00 $7,391,000.00 443 Summary of Quantities Project #11, 1-215 NB at Highgrove/Center St Subtotal. Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 0-236 0+56 0-6 1596.67 CY $15.00 $23,950.00 Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Roadway Excavation (NB loop off Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Pavement Structural Section $0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 477.00 8.00 424.00 SQYD $36.38 $15,425.12 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 477.00 48.00 593.60 CY $72.10 $42,798.56 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 477.00 48.00 414.99 TON $85.00 $35,274.15 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 477.00 48.00 763.20 CY $270.00 $206,064.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall $0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) $0.00 Retaining wall height 10' Concrete Barrier (Type 60) $0.00 Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) $0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 1170.00 1170.00 LF $0.65 $760.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove) 1170.00 1170.00 LF $2.41 $2,819.70 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena) $0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure 2.00 EA $200,000.00 $400,000.00 IL Structure Items Center St Bridge Replacement 303.00 48.00 14544.00 SQFT $250.00 $3,636,000.00 Iowa St Bridge Replacement $0.00 Railroad Bridge Replacement $0.00 Steel Truss Bridge- 4 track railroad III. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 $0.00 I. Roadway Items $952,000.00 Earthwork $24,000.00 Pavement Structural Section $300,000.00 Specialty Items $24,000.00 Traffic Items $604,000.00 II. Structural Items $3,636,000.00 Ill. Right of Way $0.00 444 Project #12, 1-215 SB, from Martin Luther King Blvd On -Ramp to Sycamore Canyon Rd Off -Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $119,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,740,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $674,400 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $193,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,444,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $258,520 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $517,040 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $258,520 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,481,792 40% of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $814,000 Ill. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Acquisition $427,500 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $9,927,772 SUPPORT COSTS $3,475,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $13,403,000 445 Summary of Quantities Project #12, 1-215 SB, from Martin Luther King Blvd Jr. On -Ramp to Sycamore Canyon Rd Off -Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Watkins) 400.00 22.00 0-13 3955.85 CY $15.00 $59,337.78 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Watkins) 450.00 0-32 0-13 3952.96 CY $15.00 $59,294.44 Pavement Structural Section $0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 6370.00 10.00 7077.78 SQYD $36.38 $257,489.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) 6370.00 22.00 3633.26 CY $72.10 $261,957.99 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) 6370.00 22.00 2540.04 TON $85.00 $215,903.19 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 6370.00 22.00 4671.33 CY $270.00 $1,261,260.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Watkins) 530.00 8.00 471.11 SQYD $36.38 $17,139.02 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Watkins) 530.00 40.00 549.63 CY $72.10 $39,628.30 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Watkins) 530.00 40.00 384.25 TON $85.00 $32,661.25 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Watkins) 530.00 40.00 706.67 CY $270.00 $190,800.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Watkins) 710.00 8.00 631.11 SQYD $36.38 $22,959.82 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Watkins) 710.00 50.00 920.37 CY $72.10 $66,358.70 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Watkins) 710.00 50.00 643.44 TON $85.00 $54,692.19 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Watkins) 710.00 50.00 1183.33 CY $270.00 $319,500.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Sec 3. Drainage Specialty Items $0.00 Remove Retaining Wall 2065.00 2065.00 LF $15.00 $30,975.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) 2065.00 1835.56 SQFT $75.00 $137,666.67 Retaining wall height 8' Sec 5. Environmental Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) 6370.00 6370.00 LF $0.65 $4,140.50 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) 12740.00 12740.00 LF $2.41 $30,703.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Watkins) 1319.00 1319.00 LF $0.65 $857.35 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Watkins) 1319.00 1319.00 LF $2.41 $3,178.79 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Watkins) 1705.00 1705.00 LF $0.65 $1,108.25 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Watkins) 1705.00 1705.00 LF $2.41 $4,109.05 Reconstruct Sign Structure 6.00 EA $200,000.00 $1,200,000.00 II. Structure Items Watkins Dr Bridge Widening 155.00 14.00 2170.00 SQFT $375.00 $813,750.00 M. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 570.00 15.00 8550.00 SQFT $50.00 $427,500.00 L Roadway Items $4,496,000.00 Earthwork $119,000.00 Pavement Structural Section $2,740,000.00 Specialty Items $193,000.00 Traffic Items $1,444,000.00 IL Structural Items $814,000.00 M. Right of Way $427,500.00 446 Project #131-215 SB, from Van Buren On Ramp to Case Rd Off Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $2,578,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $20,307,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $4,037,100 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $446,000 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $3,583,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $1,547,555 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION9: MOBILIZATION $3,095,110 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $1,547,555 $14,856,528 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $42,690,000 Ill. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Acquisition $360,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $95,047,848 SUPPORT COSTS $33,267,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $128,315,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs 447 J I Summary of Quantities Project #13, 1-215 SB, from Van Buren On Ramp to Case Rd Off Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Sec 3. Drainage Specialty hems Remove Sound Wall Sound Wall Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Concrete Barrier (Type 60) Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Reconstruct Sign Structure II. Structure Items Ramona Bridge Replacement Harley Knox Bridge Replacement Placentia Bridge Replacement Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement D St Bridge Tieback Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement Redlands Bridge Tieback Bridge Structure 1 Bridge Structure 2 Bridge Structure 3 Ill. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 845.00 26-85 480.00 21-76 700.00 18-100 588.00 26-95 790.00 25-102 775.00 0-21 695.00 19-80 778.00 20-80 52230.00 10.00 52230.00 22.00 52230.00 22.00 52230.00 22.00 1450.00 8.00 1450.00 34.00 1450.00 34.00 1450.00 34.00 860.00 8.00 860.00 32.00 860.00 32.00 860.00 32.00 720.00 8.00 720.00 48.00 720.00 48.00 720.00 48.00 1040.00 8.00 1040.00 26.00 1040.00 26.00 1040.00 26.00 1420.00 8.00 1420.00 24.00 1420.00 24.00 1420.00 24.00 1280.00 8.00 1280.00 38.00 1280.00 38.00 1280.00 38.00 1075.00 8.00 1075.00 34.00 1075.00 34.00 1075.00 34.00 1040.00 8.00 1040.00 40.00 1040.00 40.00 1040.00 40.00 1020.00 1020.00 1020.00 1020.00 3665.00 60115.00 120230.00 2900.00 2900.00 1720.00 1720.00 2320.00 2320.00 2080.00 2080.00 2840.00 2840.00 2150.00 2560.00 3380.00 3380.00 220.00 220.00 215.00 260.00 260.00 560.00 125.00 490.00 230.00 500.00 480.00 Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items Structural Items Right of Way 125.00 82.00 72.00 106.00 16.00 90.00 16.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 0-15 0-15 0-11 0-15 0-15 0-18 0-15 0-15 $26,914,000.00 $2,578,000.00 $20,307,000.00 $446,000.00 $3,583,000.00 $42,690,000.00 $360,000.00 24160.00 14576.11 14719.22 16787.22 32457.22 29114.00 22228.33 17835.56 58033.33 29790.44 20826.71 38302.00 1288.89 1278.15 893.56 1643.33 764.44 713.48 498.80 917.33 640.00 896.00 626.40 1152.00 924.44 701.04 490.10 901.33 1262.22 883.56 617.70 1136.00 1137.78 1261.04 881.60 1621.33 955.56 34.00 662.47 1218.33 924.44 1078.52 754.00 1386.67 1020.00 1020.00 1020.00 1020.00 3665.00 CY CY CY CY CY CY CY CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY SQYD CY TON CY LF SOFT LF SOFT LF 16.00 PER CORNER 60115.00 120230.00 2900.00 2900.00 1720.00 1720.00 2320.00 2320.00 2080.00 2080.00 2840.00 2840.00 2150.00 2560.00 3380.00 3380.00 12.00 27500.00 18040.00 15480.00 27560.00 4160.00 50400.00 2000.00 6860.00 3220.00 7000.00 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA 0.00 SOFT SOFT SOFT SQFT SQ FT SO FT SQFT SQFT SQFT 7200.00 SQFT $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $0.00 $27.00 $23.98 $15.00 $75.00 $82.40 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $200,000.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $50.00 $362,400.00 $218,641.67 $220,788.33 $251,808.33 $486,858.33 $436,710.00 $333,425.00 $267,533.33 $2,111,252.67 $2,147,891.04 $1,770,270.56 $10,341,540.00 $46,889.78 $92,154.48 $75,952.81 $443,700.00 $27,810.49 $51,442.01 $42,398.00 $247,680.00 $23,283.20 $64,601.60 $53,244.00 $311,040.00 $33,631.29 $50,544.77 $41,658.50 $243,360.00 $45,919.64 $63,704.36 $52,504.50 $306,720.00 $41,392.36 $90,920.77 $74,936.00 $437,760.00 $34,763.11 $2,451.40 $56,309.84 $328,950.00 $33,631.29 $77,761.19 $64,090.00 $374,400.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 40' Lane plus shoulder at 40' Lane plus shoulder at 40' $27,540.00 $24,459.60 $15,300.00 $76,500.00 Retaining wall height 9' $301,996.00 $800,000.00 $39,074.75 $289,754.30 $1,885.00 $6,989.00 $1,118.00 $4,145.20 $1,508.00 $5,591.20 $1,352.00 $5,012.80 $1,846.00 $6,844.40 $1,397.50 $6,169.60 $2,197.00 $8,145.80 $2,400,000.00 $6,875,000.00 $4,510,000.00 $3,870,000.00 $6,890,000.00 $1,040,000.00 $12,600,000.00 $500,000.00 $2,572,500.00 $1,207,500.00 $2,625,000.00 $360,000.00 with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Project #131-215 SB at Perris Overcrossing Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $0 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $0 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $0 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $0 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $0 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS 5 % of Sections 1-6 $0 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $0 10 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $0 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $0 40 % of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES III. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Acquisition TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS SUPPORT COSTS TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $500,000 $0 $500,000 $175,000 $675,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $1,356,000.00 $675,000.00 449 J I Summary of Quantities Project #13, 1-215 SB at Perris Overcrossing Subtotal Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Sec 3. Drainage Specialty hems Remove Sound Wall Sound Wall Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Concrete Barrier (Type 60) Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Reconstruct Sign Structure II. Structure Items Ramona Bridge Replacement Harley Knox Bridge Replacement Placentia Bridge Replacement Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement D St Bridge Tieback Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement Redlands Bridge Tieback Bridge Structure 1 Bridge Structure 2 Bridge Structure 3 Ill. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 125.00 Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items Structural Items Right of Way 16.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500,000.00 $0.00 2000.00 SOFT $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 40' Lane plus shoulder at 40' Lane plus shoulder at 40' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Retaining wall height 9' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Project #131-215 SB at Nuevo Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $739,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $838,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $268,800 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $0 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $215,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $103,040 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $206,080 10 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $103,040 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $989,184 40 % of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES III. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Acquisition $6,890,000 $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $10,352,144 SUPPORT COSTS $3,623,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $13,975,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $17,897,000.00 $13,975,000.00 451 J I Summary of Quantities Project #13,1-215 SB at Nuevo Subtotal Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Sec 3. Drainage Specialty hems Remove Sound Wall Sound Wall Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Concrete Barrier (Type 60) Traffic hems Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Reconstruct Sign Structure H. Structure Items Ramona Bridge Replacement Harley Knox Bridge Replacement Placentia Bridge Replacement Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement D St Bridge Tieback Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement Redlands Bridge Tieback Bridge Structure 1 Bridge Structure 2 Bridge Structure 3 Ill. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 588.00 26-95 0-15 16787.22 790.00 25-102 0-15 32457.22 1040.00 1040.00 1040.00 1040.00 1420.00 1420.00 1420.00 1420.00 2080.00 2080.00 2840.00 2840.00 260 00 Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items Structural Items Right of Way 8.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 8.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 106.00 $1,792,000.00 $739,000.00 $838,000.00 $0.00 $215,000.00 $6,890,000.00 $0.00 CY CY 924.44 SOYD 701.04 CY 490.10 TON 901.33 CY 1262.22 SOYD 883.56 CY 617.70 TON 1136.00 CY 4.00 PER CORNER 2080.00 2080.00 2840.00 2840.00 LF LF LF LF 27560.00 SOFT $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $251,808.33 $486,858.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $36.38 $33,631.29 Existing shoulders at 8' $72.10 $50,544.77 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $85.00 $41,658.50 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $270.00 $243,360.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $36.38 $45,919.64 Existing shoulders at 8' $72.10 $63,704.36 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $85.00 $52,504.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $270.00 $306,720.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Retaining wall height 9' $0.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,352.00 $5,012.80 $1,846.00 $6,844.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,890,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Project #131-215 SB at Placentia Overcrossing Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $0 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $0 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $0 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $0 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $0 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $0 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $0 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $0 $0 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $3,870,000 Ill. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $3,870,000 SUPPORT COSTS $1,355,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $5,225,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $12,354,000.00 $5,225,000.00 as Mid -County Parkway Interchange 453 J I Summary of Quantities Project #13, 1-215 SB at Placentia Overcrossing Subtotal Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Sec 3. Drainage Specialty hems Remove Sound Wall Sound Wall Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Concrete Barrier (Type 60) Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Reconstruct Sign Structure II. Structure Items Ramona Bridge Replacement Harley Knox Bridge Replacement Placentia Bridge Replacement Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement D St Bridge Tieback Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement Redlands Bridge Tieback Bridge Structure 1 Bridge Structure 2 Bridge Structure 3 Ill. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 215.00 Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items Structural Items Right of Way 72.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,870,000.00 $0.00 15480.00 SOFT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 40' Lane plus shoulder at 40' Lane plus shoulder at 40' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Retaining wall height 9' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,870,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Project #131-215 SB at Ramona Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $221,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $452,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $132,000 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $0 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $207,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $50,600 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $101,200 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES Ill. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Wav Acquisition $50,600 $485,760 $6,875,000 $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $8,575,160 SUPPORT COSTS $3,001,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $11,576,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $5,965,000.00 $5,965,000.00 455 J I Summary of Quantities Project #13, 1-215 SB at Ramona Subtotal Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Sec 3. Drainage Specialty hems Remove Sound Wall Sound Wall Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Concrete Barrier (Type 60) Traffic hems Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Reconstruct Sign Structure II. Structure Items Ramona Bridge Replacement Harley Knox Bridge Replacement Placentia Bridge Replacement Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement D St Bridge Tieback Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement Redlands Bridge Tieback Bridge Structure 1 Bridge Structure 2 Bridge Structure 3 Ill. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 700.00 18-100 0-11 14719.22 720.00 720.00 720.00 720.00 2320.00 2320.00 220 00 Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items Structural Items Right of Way 8.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 125.00 $880,000.00 $221,000.00 $452,000.00 $0.00 $207,000.00 $6,875,000.00 $0.00 640.00 896.00 626.40 1152.00 CY SQYD CY TON CY 4.00 PER CORNER 2320.00 2320.00 LF LF 27500.00 SOFT $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $220,788.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $36.38 $23,283.20 Existing shoulders at 8' $72.10 $64,601.60 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $85.00 $53,244.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $270.00 $311,040.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' $0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.65 $2.41 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Retaining wall height 9' $0.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,508.00 $5,591.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,875,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Project #131-215 SB at Harley Knox Subtotal ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $581,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $1,028,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $273,450 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $0 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $214,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $104,823 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $209,645 10 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $104,823 5 % of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,006,296 40 % of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES III. RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Acquisition $4,510,000 $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $8,032,036 SUPPORT COSTS $2,811,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $10,843,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,110,000.00 $7,110,000.00 457 J I Summary of Quantities Project #13, 1-215 SB at Harley Knox Subtotal Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st) Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands) Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands) Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands) Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands) Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands) Sec 3. Drainage Specialty hems Remove Sound Wall Sound Wall Remove Retaining Wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall) Concrete Barrier (Type 60) Traffic hems Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo) Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands) Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands) Reconstruct Sign Structure II. Structure Items Ramona Bridge Replacement Harley Knox Bridge Replacement Placentia Bridge Replacement Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement D St Bridge Tieback Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement Redlands Bridge Tieback Bridge Structure 1 Bridge Structure 2 Bridge Structure 3 Ill. Right of Way Right of Way Acquisition #1 845.00 480.00 1450.00 1450.00 1450.00 1450.00 860.00 860.00 860.00 860.00 2900.00 2900.00 1720.00 1720.00 220.00 Roadway Items Earthwork Pavement Structural Section Specialty Items Traffic Items Structural Items Right of Way 26-85 21-76 8.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 8.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 82.00 0-15 24160.00 0-15 14576.11 $1,823,000.00 $581,000.00 $1,028,000.00 $0.00 $214,000.00 $4,510,000.00 $0.00 CY CY 1288.89 SQYD 1278.15 CY 893.56 TON 1643.33 CY 764.44 SQYD 713.48 CY 498.80 TON 917.33 CY 4.00 PER CORNER 2900.00 2900.00 1720.00 1720.00 LF LF LF LF 18040.00 SOFT $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $36.38 $72.10 $85.00 $270.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.65 $2.41 $0.65 $2.41 $250.00 $250.00 $362,400.00 $218,641.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $46,889.78 $92,154.48 $75,952.81 $443,700.00 $27,810.49 $51,442.01 $42,398.00 $247,680.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Lane plus shoulder at 22' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Lane plus shoulder at 32' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Lane plus shoulder at 48' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Lane plus shoulder at 26' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Lane plus shoulder at 24' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Lane plus shoulder at 38' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Lane plus shoulder at 34' Existing shoulders at 8' Lane plus shoulder at 40' Lane plus shoulder at 40' Lane plus shoulder at 40' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Retaining wall height 9' $0.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,885.00 $6,989.00 $1,118.00 $4,145.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,510,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Moo with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' with a HMA depth of 0.25' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Project #16, EB SR-91, 1-15 SB On Ramp to 1-15 NB On Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $1,454,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $1,439,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $437,700 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $0 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $25,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $167,785 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $335,570 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES 40% of Sections 1-10 $167,785 $1,610,736 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $5,637,576 SUPPORT COSTS $1,973,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $7,611,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs 459 Summary of Quantities Project #16, EB SR-91, 1-15 SB On Ramp to 1-15 NB On Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (North of 15 ramp to EB 91) 1250.00 0-60 0-5 12215.36 CY $15.00 $183,230.42 Roadway Excavation (South of 15 ramp to EB 91) 870.00 0-105 0-7 31370.93 CY $15.00 $470,563.89 Pavement Structural Section $0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 2366.00 10.00 2628.89 SQYD $36.38 $95,638.98 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) 2366.00 22.00 1349.50 CY $72.10 $97,298.68 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) 2366.00 22.00 943.44 TON $85.00 $80,192.61 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 2366.00 22.00 1735.07 CY $270.00 $468,468.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB 15 ramp to EB 91) 1965.00 8.00 1746.67 SQYD $36.38 $63,543.73 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB 15 ramp to EB 91) 1965.00 26.00 1324.56 CY $72.10 $95,500.46 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB 15 ramp to EB 91) 1965.00 26.00 926.01 TON $85.00 $78,710.53 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB 15 ramp to EB 91) 1965.00 26.00 1703.00 CY $270.00 $459,810.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Traffic Signing and Stripping $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) 2366.00 2366.00 LF $0.65 $1,537.90 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) 4732.00 4732.00 LF $2.41 $11,404.12 Removal of Existing Striping (NB 15 ramp to EB 91) 3930.00 3930.00 LF $0.65 $2,554.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB 15 ramp to EB 91) 3930.00 3930.00 LF $2.41 $9,471.30 A Structure Items Ill. Right of Way I. Roadway Items $2,918,000.00 Earthwork $1,454,000.00 Pavement Structural Section $1,439,000.00 Specialty Items $0.00 Traffic Items $25,000.00 II. Structural Items $0.00 Ill. Right of Way $0.00 460 Project #18, SR-91 EB, Pierce St Off Ramp to Magnolia On Ramp ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS L Roadway Items Summary SECTION 1: EARTHWORK COST $939,000 Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,094,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGE $573,000 Drainage is taken at 15 % of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all SECTION 4: Specialty Items _ $0 Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $787,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $219,650 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $439,300 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $219,650 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,108,640 40% of Sections 1-10 IL STRUCTURE ITEMS BRIDGES $2,279,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $9,659,240 SUPPORT COSTS $3,381,000 Support costs are 35 % of capital outlay costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $13,040,000 461 Summary of Quantities Project #18, SR-91 EB, Pierce St Off Ramp to Magnolia On Ramp Item Description Distance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total Cost Engineering Assumptions L Roadway Items Summary Earthwork Roadway Excavation (EB Magnolia off Ramp) 260.00 260.00 0-15 26576.11 CY $15.00 $398,641.67 Roadway Excavation (EB Magnolia on Ramp) 330.00 220 0-8 13303.70 CY $15.00 $199,555.56 Roadway Excavation (EB Pierce off Ramp) 715 32-78 0-15 22695.00 CY $15.00 $340,425.00 Pavement Structural Section $0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 4115.00 10.00 4572.22 SOYD $36.38 $166,337.44 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline) 4115.00 22.00 2347.07 CY $72.10 $169,224.04 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline) 4115.00 22.00 1640.86 TON $85.00 $139,472.78 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline) 4115.00 22.00 3017.67 CY $270.00 $814,770.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia off Ramp) 1345.00 8.00 1195.56 SOYD $36.38 $43,494.31 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Magnolia off Ramp) 1345.00 26.00 906.63 CY $72.10 $65,368.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Magnolia off Ramp) 1345.00 26.00 633.83 TON $85.00 $53,875.66 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia off Ramp) 1345.00 26.00 1165.67 CY $270.00 $314,730.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia on Ramp) 745.00 8.00 662.22 SOYD $36.38 $24,091.64 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Magnolia on Ramp) 745.00 22.00 424.93 CY $72.10 $30,637.16 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Magnolia on Ramp) 745.00 22.00 297.07 TON $85.00 $25,250.84 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia on Ramp) 745.00 22.00 546.33 CY $270.00 $147,510.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Pierce off Ramp) 300.00 8.00 266.67 SOYD $36.38 $9,701.33 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Pierce off Ramp) 300.00 24.00 186.67 CY $72.10 $13,458.67 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Pierce off Ramp) 300.00 24.00 130.50 TON $85.00 $11,092.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB Pierce off Ramp) 300.00 24.00 240.00 CY $270.00 $64,800.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization 3.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00 $150,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping $0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline) 4112.00 4112.00 LF $0.65 $2,672.80 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline) 8224.00 8224.00 LF $2.41 $19,819.84 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Magnolia off Ramp) 2690.00 2690.00 LF $0.65 $1,748.50 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Magnolia off Ramp) 2690.00 2690.00 LF $2.41 $6,482.90 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Magnolia on Ramp) 1490.00 1490.00 LF $0.65 $968.50 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Magnolia on Ramp) 1490.00 1490.00 LF $2.41 $3,590.90 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Pierce off Ramp) 600.00 600.00 LF $0.65 $390.00 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Pierce off Ramp) 600.00 600.00 LF $2.41 $1,446.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure 3.00 EA $200,000.00 $600,000.00 II. Structure Items Magnolia Bridge Widening 340.00 14.00 4760.00 SOFT $375.00 $1,785,000.00 Pierce Bridge Widening 94.00 14.00 1316.00 SOFT $375.00 $493,500.00 Ill. Right of Way I. Roadway Items $3,820,000.00 Earthwork $939,000.00 Pavement Structural Section $2,094,000.00 Specialty Items $0.00 Traffic Items $787,000.00 IL Structural Items $2,279,000.00 Ill. Right of Way $0.00 462 ATTACHMENT 5 RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND REGIONAL LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE Draft Technical Memorandum: Task 4 - Fee Allocation Structure and Implementing Mechanisms Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Prepared for: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Prepared by: In partnership with: FEHRifi PEERS April 23, 2019 463 464 Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. PROFILE AND OUTLOOK FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT 2 2.1. PROFILE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT 2 2.2 PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE SPACE 6 3. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF A PROPOSED FEE ON LOCATIONAL DECISIONS 7 3.1. COST OF A PROPOSED FEE COMPARED TO TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 7 3.2. COMPARATIVE FEES COSTS IN OTHER AREAS OUTSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY 8 4. COMPARATIVE FEE COSTS 10 4.1. CURRENT FEE COSTS 10 4.2. FUTURE FEE DEVELOPMENT COSTS 10 5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 11 Exhibits EXHIBIT I. PERCENTAGE SHARE OF TOTAL INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING AREA IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BY COUNTY IN 2014 2 EXHIBIT 2. SUBMARKET AREAS IN THE SCAG REGION 4 EXHIBIT3. EXISTING INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS IN THE SCAG REGION (ALL BUILDING SIZES AND ALL SECONDARY TYPES), 2014 5 EXHIBIT 4. UNCONSTRAINED VERSUS CONSTRAINED REGIONAL -LEVEL TOTAL OCCUPIED WAREHOUSE SPACE FORECASTS BY YEAR IN THE SCAG REGION, 2040 (MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET) 6 EXHIBIT 5. AVERAGE NEW CONSTRUCTION COST BREAKDOWN FOR A 500,000-SQUARE-FOOT WAREHOUSE 8 EXHIBIT 6. CURRENT AVERAGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COSTS PER SQUARE FOOT AND PROPORTIONS IN INLAND EMPIRE JURISDICTIONS 9 EXHIBIT 7. JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN FEE STUDY 10 Page li 465 466 Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee 1. Introduction A potential logistics mitigation fee of $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area of new warehouse construction in Riverside County would provide funding for highway projects that are needed to mitigate the impacts of increased truck traffic resulting from new development. The RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum: Task 3 - Nexus Study describes the needs for this fee and how the proposed amount of the fee was determined. The objective of this document is to assess the potential impacts of this fee on warehouse development within Riverside County. Such development affects many other aspects of the county's economy, including direct employment, induced employment in businesses supporting warehousing, transportation volumes, demand for other county services, and local and state tax revenues. Major factors addressed include the following: • The market for logistics and warehouse development in Southern California. How likely will the proposed fee affect the pace of development given the overall supply and demand for warehouse space in Southern California? • The extent to which locational decisions within the Southern California market could be affected by the proposed fee: — How does the proposed fee compare to total development costs (including land and construction costs)? — How does the proposed fee compare to similar fees elsewhere in the market? — Will the fee substantially influence developers to locate in areas outside Riverside County? • The possibility that other changes in regional development fees or development costs might affect the potential impacts of the proposed Riverside mitigation fee. Mitigation fees have been applied across multiple building types and for multiple purposes as shown in Appendix 1, and such fees are likely to evolve over time. The following sections address these questions. Page 11 467 NNW Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee 2. Profile and Outlook for Southern California Warehouse Development 2.1. PROFILE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT The Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region study (Industrial Warehousing Study) completed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in 2018 details the location of industrial warehouse buildings in Southern California and provides projections of new developments for 43 sub- regions. As shown in Exhibit 1, these buildings are heavily concentrated in Los Angeles and San Bernardino, and to a lesser extent Orange, and Riverside Counties. Exhibit 1. Percentage Share of Total Industrial Warehouse Building Area in Southern California by County in 2014 Los Angeles San Bernardino Orange Riverside Ventura 0 10 20 30 40 50 Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April2078 Exhibit 2 shows the 43 sub -regions used in the Industrial Warehousing Study. Riverside County includes the following submarket areas: • Riverside (18) • Corona (25) • South Riverside (32) • Coachella Valley (25) • Riverside Outlying (36) San Bernardino County includes the following submarket areas: • West San Bernardino (10) • Ontario Airport Area (11) • East San Bernardino (12) Page 12 468 Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee • North San Bernardino (19) • San Bernardino Outlying Areas (35) Exhibit 3 shows detail for existing warehouse buildings, with inset 2 extending from the East San Bernardino County submarket to areas to the west. This detail shows that industrial warehouse buildings in San Bernardino are concentrated in the southwest part of the county. To the south of inset 1, it can be seen that in Riverside County industrial warehouse buildings are concentrated in the western portion of the county. Page 13 469 470 Exhibit 2. Submarket Areas in the SCAG Region Legend SbmkLab2 1_ 22 Easl LA. Cnty Outlying inn i '01. Long Beach Area Ind P23 Ventura County Ind .02. CdrsoMRandhd Oodringz Ind 1124. Coachella Valley Ind 1.11°!03. Lynwood/Paramount Ind E25 Corona Ind 01. Mid Counties -LA Ind 26. Northwest SGV and pn Verson Area Ind D27 Grange County Outlying Ind Cfi. Commerce Area Intl 11128 Jann Wayne Aepan Area Ind nr SaeerWaat SGV Ind .29. Santa Glarna Valley C8 Lower SGV Ind 0 30, SPY Nkst Ind 09. Eastern SGV Intl .31. South Orange County Ind 1110. West San Berardino County Ind ■ 32. South Riverside County Ind ▪ OhtanaAapdrt Ares Intl D33 Upper SGV Intl . 12, East San Bernardino County Ind .34, Torrance/Beach Cities Ind 11113. Gardena/11C Condor Intl El 35. San Bernardino County Oullying Ind .14. Central IA Ind 36. Riverside County OuAyi99 Ind 15. Et SegundolNewlhorne Ind .37. Conelo Valley Ind 16 North Orange Courtly !rid .38. NE LA Cnly Gudying Intl NW Nest Orange CnUmy Ind .39. Antelope Valley Ind 1.18, RNerank Ind .40 NW LA Cnty Gullying inn J 19. North San Bernardino County Intl 154t Ventura Cnty Gullying Lul .I20. Nbstsrde Ind ❑42 Imperial County Intl `-� 21. SE-V East Ind ❑ 43. Catalina Island Ind 41 23 Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee 011111111111 R.r 39 38 38 19 29 37 30 21 20 43 22 26 33 9 11 8 10 16 25 17 27 28 31 V 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 Page 14 Miles 471 Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Exhibit 3. Existing Industrial Warehouse Buildings in the SCAG Region (All Building Sizes and All Secondary Types), 2014 Legend • &swing 3nduslea3 Warehouse Building ❑ Subme rket Major Hwys N A 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 Miles Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 Page 15 472 NNW Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee 2.2 PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE SPACE The Industrial Warehousing Study included forecasts of supply and demand for warehousing space in 43 geographical submarket areas of the SCAG region shown in Exhibit 2. The forecast was based on an inventory of warehouse space for 2014 and annual forecasts through 2040 for containerized port -related, border -crossing -related, and domestic cargo markets.' Each of these cargo sources was further segmented by type of type of warehouse use. The Industrial Warehousing Study's baseline scenario used recent forecasts of port- and border -crossing - related cargo and assumed no efficiency gains in cargo storage over time and no replacement of obsolete buildings. It also assumed that the warehouse functional -use mix would not change and that current estimates of existing developable space were available for new facilities. The study developed two demand projections - one that assumed no constraint on total warehouse space and the other that would be constrained by limitations on developable areas. The two projections are shown in Exhibit 4. As shown, total unconstrained 2040 demand for the Industrial Warehousing Study's baseline scenario is 1.81 billion square feet —an increase of 59 percent from 1.13 billion square feet in 2014 (a compound annual growth rate of 1.8 percent). Exhibit 4. Unconstrained versus Constrained Regional -Level Total Occupied Warehouse Space Forecasts by Year in the SCAC Region, 2040 (millions of square feet) 1,900 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,soa 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 Baseline Scenario Nrr CJ7 o CV M 1-1-J CO 47 C] CV NI CQ 44 173 4 CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV C.4 CV in C7 4'7 in NI M NI in NI in � C Q G(7 4 (7, C) (7) CI O G G (7, ,7) O Q C C7 Ca 4-(7) OCI Ca N N N N CV N N N N N N C N N N N N N N N N CV N CV N N N Unconstrained Occupied Warehouse Space Forecast Constrained Occupied Warehouse Space Forecast Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 1 "Port -related," is containerized cargo handled at San Pedro Bay Ports (i.e., excluding containerized cargo handled at Port Hueneme or Port of San Diego). "Border -crossing related" refers to goods that cross the land ports of entry in Imperial County. "Domestic cargo" is any other type of containerized cargo not classified as "port -related" or "border -crossing -related" cargo. Page 16 473 NNW Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee 3. Potential Effects of a Proposed Fee on Locational Decisions The previous section provided baseline projections of industrial warehouse development in Southern California. However, these projections did not account for changes in costs that could affect locational decisions of developers. In theory, higher development costs represented by a proposed mitigation fee could marginally induce developers to choose locations outside of Riverside County (e.g., in Los Angeles or San Bernardino Counties). The principal question concerning these impacts is how much a proposed fee would increase total development costs including land and construction. The impacts of larger development costs would also, theoretically, be offset by any perceived benefits developers could see from improved highway transportation that would result from the mitigation fee. This is a smaller point, that is addressed separately, below. 3.1. COST OF A PROPOSED FEE COMPARED TO TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Exhibit 5 shows that total construction costs for warehouse space in Los Angeles are the highest in the country at nearly $170 per square foot. Costs in the Inland Empire are the second highest in the country at $110 per square foot. The $110-per-square-foot estimate is slightly less than the $121 per square foot cost estimated in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Comparative Fee Study that includes $75.35 per square foot in total direct and indirect costs plus $45.35 per square foot in land costs (see Appendix A).2 Using the $121 per square foot estimate from the WRCOG study, the proposed fee would represent 1.1 percent of total construction costs. 2 Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, Western Riverside Council of Governments, March 2019 Page 17 474 Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Exhibit 5. Average New Construction Cost Breakdown for a 500,000-square-foot Warehouse Land ru, J;;i, Los Angelo' Inland Empire Central NJ Partland Pennsytyaniof1-78/B1 Corridor Houston Chi raga Phoenix Dal las(Ft_ Worth Atlanta S PSF 0 2O 40 6D BO 100 120 14D 180 1BO Note: All develop rrent(am were based on the total aosrlareorh of the three categories (land, hard and soil [arts) divided hp 50[1100sq. R. Stone: Trammell Craw, CBRE iteseent, 2OI8_ The attraction, and scarcity, of space in Los Angeles clearly results in a large cost premium, so it is unlikely that small additional marginal costs in Riverside County would significantly tip the balance of location toward Los Angeles. As shown in Exhibit 5, development costs are about 55 percent higher in Los Angeles County than in the Inland Empire. Therefore, a 1.1 percent fee is insignificant in comparison. 3.2. COMPARATIVE FEES COSTS IN OTHER AREAS OUTSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY The question then becomes whether a 1.1 percent increase in development costs would cause developers to locate in other areas outside of Riverside County, especially in San Bernardino County, part of the Inland Empire immediately to the north of Riverside County and where warehouse development has been concentrated as discussed in the previous section. In addition to representing a small, 1.1 percent share of total development costs, the proposed fee of $1.28 per square foot would also be much smaller than current fees for industrial development in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, about 25 percent of the average level of fees in Riverside County, and about 22 percent of the average level of these fees in San Bernardino (see Exhibit 6). A possible additional consideration is that a proposed fee would be used to fund improvements to highway transportation in Riverside County. This would, over time, reduce transportation costs for industrial warehouse users, and developers could possibly view this as a benefit. Realistically, however, the mitigation fee will represent a real upfront cost while future transportation costs reductions would likely be heavily discounted and therefore have only minimal impacts on locational decisions. In addition, it is difficult to know how much developers would link any future improvements to the fee. This is a possible additional consideration and is not addressed further within this analysis. Page I$ 475 Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Exhibit 6. Current Average Industrial Development Impact Fee Costs Per Square Foot and Proportions in Inland Empire Jurisdictions $5 $5 - $d $3 - $2 $0 • 201": 7tir WRCOG Average 6% 27% Coachella Valley Average T z 8 17% 11% San Bernardino County Average ■ Regional Transportation Fees ■ Water and Sewer Fees ■ Other City Fees School Fees Other AreafRegional Fees Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 Page 19 476 Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee 4. Comparative Fee Costs 4.1. CURRENT FEE COSTS The proposed mitigation fee would increase construction costs for warehouse development in Riverside County by about 1.1 percent and, taken alone, this could make San Bernardino County slightly more attractive to developers. However, higher fees in San Bernardino County could dampen this small effect. San Bernardino County's impact fees are higher than those in Riverside County according to the fee comparison study done by the WRCOG. Exhibit 6 shows the jurisdictions that were used to compare fees. Exhibit 7. Jurisdictions Included in Fee Study WRCOG Jurisdictions Coachella Valley Ban Bernardino County Banning Canyon Lake Beaumont Muniete Norco Perris Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs Fontana Yucaipa San Bernardino Calimesa Riverside Ontario Corona San Jacinto Eastuale Temecula Hemet Wildomar Jurupa Valley Temescal Malley Lake Elsinore Winchester Menifee March JPA Morena Malley Chino Rialto Source Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 Exhibit 6 showed that average industrial development impact fees in WRCOG jurisdictions as well as areas in Coachella Valley are both notably lower than average fees in San Bernardino County. A few WRCOG jurisdictions have relatively high fees. Appendix B includes fee details for individual WRCOG jurisdictions. 4.2. FUTURE FEE DEVELOPMENT COSTS In addition to current average industrial fees being higher in San Bernardino County than in Riverside County, a factor that could affect warehouse development location decisions is the possibility that fees or other costs could change in San Bernardino County, or other Southern California market areas. The possibility exists, for example, that other counties could implement a fee like the one proposed in Riverside County. While entirely speculative, such a scenario would also be based on needs to fund highway development in San Bernardino County or other regions in Southern California. Page 110 477 Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee 5. Summary of Findings The Southern California region is a well -established, prime location for industrial warehouse development and will continue to be so. Los Angeles County is especially attractive because of its proximity to ports, large regional markets, and transportation connectivity. Because of these advantages and relatively scarce land availability, that market also has the highest construction costs for warehouse development in the United States. While significantly less than Los Angeles, the Inland Empire has the second -highest costs for warehouse development in the country. A proposed mitigation fee in Riverside County is likely to have limited impacts on reducing demand on warehouse development in Riverside County because of the following: • It will represent a small (1.1 percent) share of total development costs, including land and construction costs. • Total development costs for Los Angeles County will continue to be much higher than for the Inland Empire. • Impact fees are generally higher in San Bernardino County compared to those in Riverside County. • Any possible impacts of a proposed fee could be affected by offsetting changes in development costs in San Bernardino County and in other regions in the Southern California market, including increases in mitigation fees. Page 111 478 NNW Appendix A Development Prototypes - Total Development Costs Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Total development costs per building square foot of $121.10 for industrial buildings include total direct and indirect costs of $75.35 plus the land value of $45.75. Development Cots, Land Values, Ind Return Single Family Per Unit Mtillifsrnily Per Unit Ind ustrl al Per Bldg $q.Ft. Rota II Per Bldg S+,Ft, Office Per Bldg 8 q.Ft. DIRECT Basic Site World Lot Improrornonts Direct Construction Cast I -lard Cost Total $31,852 $227,898 $259,550 $9,756 $1.2.13 3,26.38 $15_97 $196,540 $37.98 $13.8.75 S 148.31 $298,3137 $50.12 $165.13 S163.38 INDIRECT TU IVIF $8,873 $6,134 $1.45 S7.59 $2.19 Other Development Impact Fps $38,597 $23,572 $3.74 316.13 $11.87 Other Soft Costs $56,893 $47,674 $31.26 $33.02 Soft GOSt Taal S 194,363 $77_380 $25.24 354.89 $47.98 Taal Direct and Indirect Cow S363.913 $283,666 $75.35 $220,01 S216.46 Developer Rekum Rapiremenl $56,169 $33,492 $15.,613 $34,02 2,52 Lund Value S141,527 $17,737 $45,75 $316,21 U2.38 TOTAL CCSTRETURM $561.61)0 $334.916 $136.19 "340.25 $125.36 source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 Page 112 479 NN N 1 Appendix B Industrial Prototype Development Fees by Jurisdiction (per building sq. ft.) >n ■ Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ' ■ a ■ II I i 11 ■ _ ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ i ■ 9 &...riwi L,n1ur,LWr 1-1 r CWu 1 ,II MI irn0.:LI,•ri.n+a: .A�.Yii- N,nYi kW, EM %rMYti .i 1.41d SM1NhY YiYiriif Ur.r� Ll i.,+,m• yi rhli. �, * rrenndai 1 .�rl w31ekrR.......GVI.p +• IfeQx�d7luyxrl.Yx, Fie.{rJ.f } +s +Am r n Sour Feeo 01& Fax — eahrd Fin Fin li] FrY ...rx.bk, muftedsertTrr.rl weLf w.Yd.1* ruin .41 naI L...! bw.iun merr IP.t.+ Edo, Iwyri/w. (11Tb...a Paul Moja .Ns Fmk. kul madam. n roder(•tr Lei. rabies+= Emir ir...ro.. ie...d b.bleiniy.L-. r... Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 Page 113 480 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE N IEXUS STUDY May 8, 2019 Lorelle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Dir Daren Henderson, WSP, Project Man Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Outline of Topics • Background • Fee Program Basics • Major Tasks • Nexus Findings • Locational Impacts Assessment • Next Steps 2 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Background 3 EUCALYPTUS AVE EUCALYPTUS AVE DRACAEAAVE REDLANDS BLVD COTTONWOOD—AVE BAY AVE ALESSANDRO BLVD BRODIAEA AVE CACTUS AVE col zl w. z THEODORE ST EUCALYPTUS AVE ALESSANDRO BLVD w ■ ■ R IN w World Logistics Center- Specific Plan Boundary ■■■ /// VIRGINIA ST A portion of the Moreno Highlands Specific Plan 212-1 located outside of the Proposed World Logistics Center Specific Plan Boundary (Proposed Open Space Zone) Not a Part City Boundary Source: City of Moreno Valley Proposed World Logistics Center • A master -planned development planned for 40.6 million SF • Large-scale logistics operations • Covers 2,610 acres • Expected to draw as many as 14,000 truck trips per day at build -out • In comparison, Skechers is 1.8 million SF 4 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Challenging the =R • RCTC filed suit in Sept. 2015 • Additional suits filed by the County and SCAQMD • Additional CEQA lawsuits filed by environmental organizations • Highland Fairview (HF) launched initiatives to supplant city approval of the project • RCTC filed suit challenging the initiatives in Feb. 2016 5 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Settlement Agreement- Terms and Conditions • Settlement reached July 2016 • HF and Moreno Valley must contribute $100,000 each for air quality studies • HF to receive TUMF credit for widening Gilman Springs • HF to contribute: — $3 million for Gilman Springs safety improvements — $2 million for widening SR-60 — $1 million for improving the Theodore Interchange 6 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Settlement Agreement • World Logistics Center Settlement • Each party to contribute $250,000 ®HIGH LAN CFAIRVIEW MORENO W 71 ERE DREAMS SOAR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This settlement agreement („Agreement") is made at Riverside, California, as of July 2016, between THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. (the "County") and the RIVERSIDE C0UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (the "RCTC"), on the one hand, and the CITY OF MORENO VALLEY and the MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (collectively the "City"), HF PROPERTIES, 2_ Highland Fairview, the City, the County and the ROTC will each contribute, directly or indirectly, $250,000, fora total of$1,000,000, to be used For an RCTC-conducted regional transportation study to cvalualc a logistics -related regional fee. The contributions shall be submitted to the RCTC and shall be manaeed according to its regular aecnuntino practices_ The contributions will be made no later than 60 calendar days alter a final ...regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics -related regional fee... iLIGJG 1l411u0. AL ally 1.III126. 7 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Potential Regional Fee • HF will pay $0.65/SF in -lieu fee if there is an established regional logistics fee program • A regional fee would need approval of the county or 75 percent of the cities • Approval must take place within 24 months of the HF and Moreno Valley $250,000 contribution for the study • Should no regional fee be approved, the fee is reduced to $0.50/SF 8 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Study Participants Ekeilfrarts. NAIOP Ws ) --Z TM INNOVATING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW FEHO'PEERS • R or A. T AG ASouth Coast {�M D Cities Others 9 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Scope of Work/Timeline 1) Existing and Future Conditions Analysis 2) Funding and Cost Analysis 3) Nexus Study October 2017 March 2018 April 2019 4) Locational Impacts April 2019 Assessment 10 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Fee Program Basics 11 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Fee Program Requirements • California Mitigation Fee Act: ■ Must establish a rational nexus/reasonable relationship between the infrastructure need and development impact ■ Fees must be roughly proportional with the impacts of development and the cost of the infrastructure ■ A development does not have to exclusively benefit from the infrastructure but can substantially benefit from the overall improvement in regional mobility ➢ A Nexus Study is prepared to fulfill these requirements 12 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Fee Program Requirements ■ An impact fee cannot mitigate for existing deficiencies. ■ Existing needs and similar impacts from outside Riverside County (pass - through trips) must be excluded from a fee. ■ No overlap with the WRCOG and CVAG TUMF programs, this study focuses only on mainline freeway truck impacts and mitigation (which are not a part of either TUMF). 13 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Major Tasks 14 Forecast Logistics Growth Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Major Tasks A( Model validation A( Forecast logistics growth A( Forecast truck trips A( Identify capacity deficiencies ✓ Attribute deficiencies to new logistics development ✓ Estimate project costs A( Compute fee amount ✓ Locational impacts KEY 0 Pefernnne in Description in Text Key Ilturis C.omputatiod ModeFYaT� • Mil °L Model Runs ' Nullifying Capacity Deficiencies SCAGi24128PPe Recent need 'iedr!faired InkorolemeMS lr• .19x Transportation Erlp:,y'I,ent Nenvak Dome Factors 2Ot8 Rdciv R Empbripont 0 SM.2ry1D scs Housing S. Employment 0 SCA MO= 0Tousk TnxidmptoymeM Trlp•Gon Task Reaes 1 it4d ` r 2It, Improvement Model Run ForM451 Trnuk Trigs for Now Logistics LT Fri MT Tripp I?41 t{TTtips Attributing CapacityPeficieneieR to Hew Logistics Development 111) LTTrip9A 1 MT Trip o•n fiTTrip4-0 IAa[ru 411) Euibiing Furura Capacity Deft- C°�61m Oeficencies fCarman, Elefrclanclea Attributable to New Gevalopmeia $election Criteria tr. 10 Formal of Logistics Jobs Grote TAP TSu usyof Fasting home( Rirth of I3iplolyenfISF / T LITrips Grouvthin 11 MT trips i LAgl97ce TEF 2G49 Hi Trips for New Logistics % Trips %LTT Trips - 94MTTripstc. Now Logistics for eachTA2 LTTHpd•n Pimp O-a yRT pD-P Made veto 41311 Newtagislics Model 2 Run erio ' Nevangisics • 2alo Trailla Ydumcs by Link Po- sublr ptnjeetfiat Arijusiment eF _ Selection Criteria fir lln�Arm,•:I. I' ilthul L ac s i cnmuy Ncr%.6 Other r Funding Needs by [aged J 2UM Traffic Volumes by Link Who LogisbC4 2Ot6T1mok Aron/ AtlribuPohlal to Ilea Lagistm 23 $ham of,� _gt Need le PC1Nava Eslnnnh rig freeway Pruned Cesks Design Slandards (kith Costs log ROW ty, Fa.ility Type S Cnnstruoljkry Cost per Mile by Pruned Type # CampuGnptheFee Prof ed CusIs Altribulublc b Nsw Logistics Fee per 11F Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Forecast Wgistics Growth EDD Warehouse and other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends [Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario MSA] 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 '71" lA 00 O cV '71- lD 00 O 01 (1 01 0 0 0 0 0%-1 01 01 01 O O O O O O % -1 % -1 % -1 NI NI N NI NI N Warehouse N '71" LID 00 O % -I r-I % -1 % -1 N O O O O O N fV eV N fV Non -Warehouse fV '71- NJ NI O O N N lD N O NI 00 N O Ni M O NJ N '71" O O NI fV M M '71" O O O NI NJ NI EDD data was extrapolated as input to modeling freeway traffic impacts Source: California Employment Development Department (EDD) Industry Employment Data for Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 16 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Forecast Logistics Growth Warehouse Employment Growth for Riverside County 2016 2040 Employees Employees SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Employment Forecast 5,343 13,612 13,080 27,662 EDD Employment Trend Forecast • EDD warehouse employment trend forecast was used for modeling purposes Growt Employees 8,269 14,582 Warehouse Building Area Growth for Riverside County SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS HDT Model GF Forecast II SF GFA SF GFA 63,309,990 100,642,169 EDD Employment Trend Forecast 29,312,280 61,990,542 Growth SF GFA 37,332,179 32,678,262 • EDD employment trend forecast was multiplied by 2,241 square feet per employee ratio from NAIOP Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space, March 2010 Basis to mode impacts Basis to calculate fee 17 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Fore cast Truck Trips Truck Traffic O-D Distribution by Route State Route No. 74 91 71 60 15 215 10 62 15 79 86 111 78 10 95 177 60 60 215 60 91 91 215 215 15 215 10 10 10 Link 11 _1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 10I 11 12 13 r 14 15 ,J 16 17 181 Heavy -Duty Trucks Riverside SCAG 21% _ fit 26% _ Medium -Duty Trucks Riverside SCAG i 1 40% 21% % 22% 18% o 34 33%.=.74% 28% 1% I 1% 2% I 6% 27% 0 1 32% % 19i 20 21 22 23 241 25 260 27 281 29. 21% 43% 0% 0% 13% = 32% 26% - 53% 55% - 78% 55% - 80% 52% - 83% 45%-1111O 44 11 43% 11 48% 173% 26% _ 36% 26% _ 37% 18% M 26% 43% - 72% 41% - 62% 32% 41% 37% 28% 26% 25% 39% 41% 42% 1% 7% 32% 31% 23% 0% 23% 41% 61% 65% 60% 52% 62% 63% 66% 66% 1 56% 1 55% 1 55% 99% 98% 93 % 95 92% 94 85 98% 1% 15% 85% 88% 47 0% 88 % 91% 92% 96) 98% 97% 86% 79% 74% 61% 84% 63% 80% 33% 39% • Model results were analyzed to identify those truck trips generated by developments within Riverside County, and those that were generated by developments elsewhere in the SCAG region (and beyond) • The O-D distribution helped to account for pass -through trips 18 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Fo re c a st Tru c k Trips New Logistics Trucks on Freeways in Western Rye rside County Bandwidth reflect proportional increased volume Largest increases in truck flows would occur on SR-60 and I-215 Source: 2040 forecast from 2016 SCAG RTP 19 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Identified Deficiencies Based on New Warehousing Development y■ ■::-s._ Nip ■■ �n■�. ■.m� ■a�i.�H■�...■.1r' -9m MUME■:f iimmilEnEMZMI ONE .IM�1�■ TIEM 40 forecast from 2016 SLAG RTP J VC mm < 0.2 — 0.2 to 0.9 - 0.9 to 1.0 > 1.0 20 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Attributing the Share of Impacts • Adjust for the following factors: — Existing capacity deficiency — Share of future traffic growth that is attributable to other development activity — Pass through trips that have a trip end outside Riverside County • Accomplished by comparing base model run to model run that separates warehouse and logistics uses 21 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Attributing the Share of Impacts ID Route Name Dir Beginning End Segment Length (mi) 2040 Max V/C Recommended Improvement % Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics Trucking 1 1-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd 1.0 1.01 Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 1% Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 1.1 1.01 1% 2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of 1-15/1-215 Split 0.7 1.08 Add aux lane between the on -ramp and the lane add 1% 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 0.8 1.03 Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 0.3% 4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 0.2 1.03 Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 1% 5 Norco Dr/6th Street Limonite Ave 2.0 1.14 Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 1% 6 SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave 1.3 1.02 Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 4% Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th Street 2.0 1.04 5% 7 El Cerrito Rd Dos Lagos Dr 2.1 1.09 Widen mainline to 4lanes 2% 8 Temescal Canyon Rd Indian Truck Trail 2.2 1.01 Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 1% 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St 0.8 1.03 Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 31% Market St Main St 0.1 1.06 112r 10 1-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave 0.4 1.07 � Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 14% Watkins Dr Martin Luther King Jr 0.8 6 10c University Ave Off -Ramp Upstream of Univ Ave On -ramp 0.4 1.04 Add aux lane upstream of the on -ramp to the off -ramp 13% 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa Ave 0.5 1.03 Add aux lane between the off -ramp and the county line 12% 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 1.6 1.25 . Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 57% 13 Van Buren Blvd Harley Knox Blvd 1.2 1.06 Add aux lane between the on- and off -ramps 4% 14 SR-91 NB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off -Ramp 0.8 1.23 I Add aux lane from the county line to Green River Rd. off -ramp 1% Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 1.3 1.02 Widen mainline to 6 lanes 10% SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp 1.4 I 1.27 Widen mainline to 6 lanes 1% 15 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Grand Blvd Off -Ramp 2.3 1.23 Widen mainline to 5 lanes 9% 16 On -Ramp from SB 1-15 On -Ramp from NB 1-15 0.3 1.07 Add aux lane 8% 17 McKinley St Off -Ramp Pierce St 1.6 1.14 Widen mainline to 4 lanes 10% 18 Magnolia Ave La Sierra Ave 0.3 1.00 Add aux lane between the ramps 8% 19 SB Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 2.3 1.12 Widen mainline to 5 lanes 3% Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line 1.7 1.07 Widen mainline to 6 lanes 2% 22 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Cost Estimation Methodology • Deficient segments were reviewed to determine project limits/logical termini for mitigation project concepts • Mitigation project concepts were compared to completed and ongoing RCTC program to determine where deficiencies have been/are being mitigated • Conceptual designs were developed using Google desktop research. — All costs and impacts based on visual analysis — No detailed engineering completed for verification 23 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Cost Estimation Methodology • Conceptual costs were developed based on the quantification of construction elements in the conceptual designs • Unit cost values based on Caltrans 2016/2017 Construction Cost Database • Various ancillary and support cost factors, and contingency factor applied 24 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Conceptual Design Example 1-15 SBCajalco to Indian Truck LEGEND: ROW IMPACTS 2 RETAINING WALL 3 WIDENING 4 STRUCTURE RAMP REALM V ROADWAY EXCAVATION 5 T STREET IMPROVEMENTS 8 maNALQATION 200' 0 200 900' PROJECT ID 07 EXHIBIT 2 OF 3 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Total Conceptual Cost Estimate RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Capacity Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimate Summary ID Haute Name Dir Beginning End Total Conceptual Project Cost Findings 1 1-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-15 at Rancho California Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of 1-1511-215 Split - Mitigated by French Valley Parkway Project 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000 Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-15 at Baxter 4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave - Mitigated by 1-15 Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) 5 Norco Drl6th St Limonite Ave - Mitigated by 1-15 Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) 6 SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave _ Mitigated by 1-15 Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) Limonite Ave Norco Drl6th 7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000 Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-15 at Temescal Canyon 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-15 at Cajalco 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 Market St Main St 10 1-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins ❑r $26,513,000 Central AvelWatkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-215 at HighgrovelCenter 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 Cost reduced by TUMF inclusion of 1-215 at Perris, Nuevo, Placentia (MCP), Ramona and Harley Knox 14 SR-91 NB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off -Ramp - Mitigated by SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project Green River Rd Off -Ramp SR-71 SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp 15 Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off -Ramp - Mitigated by SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project 16 On -Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- 1-15 $7,611,000 17 McKinley St Off Ramp Pierce St - Mitigated by SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 19 SB Serfas Club Dr Off -Ramp Lane Add at 5R-71 - Mitigated by SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Linellowa - Sum Total: $385,335,000 Total Conceptual Cost Estimate: $385,335,000 26 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Tota I Log istics Cost Share ROTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Capacity Improvement Project Adjusted Conceptual Cost Share Summary ID Route Name ❑ir Beginning End Total Conceptual Project Cast Logistics Attributable Share Logistics Cost Share 1 1-15 NB 5B SR-79 5 Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 0.7% $258,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000 0.3% $19,000 7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000 2.2% $820,000 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 1.4% $142,000 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 31.8% $12 802,000 Market St Main St 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26 513 000 30 0°la $7,963,000 Central AveMiatkins Martin Luther icing 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 13.3% $7,317,000 11 Center St Off -Ramp Riverside County Linellowa $42,212,000 11.8% $4,978,000 12 5B Martin Luther icing Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 57.1% $7,658,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 4.4% $4,235,000 16 SR 91 NB On -Ramp from SB-1-15 On Ramp from NB- 1-15 $7,611,000 7.5% $571,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 8.3% $1,078,000 Sum Total: $385,335,000 12.4% $47,841,000 Includes auxiliary lane improvements Total Logistics Cost Share: $47,841,000 27 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Potential Logistics Impact Fee Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee for Riverside County Logistics Cost Share of Freeway Mitigation $47,841,000 Growth in Warehouse Gross Floor Area in S • uare Feet Fee per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area up to $1.28 28 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY LDcational Impacts Assessment 29 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Southern California Warehouse Distribution Percentage Share of Total Industrial Warehouse Building Area by County in 2014 Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 30 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Potential Effects of Fee on LDcationa I Decisions Average New Construction Cost Breakdown for a 500,000-square-foot Warehouse land Hord Soft $ PSF Las Angeles Idnd Empire (MBA 111 1 • Pal -Hand MIL Pennsybaniai I-78r B1 Corridor Houston Chicago - Phoenix ■ Dal Ias/Ft_ Worth , Atlanta , i i i 0 10 40 SD 80 100 120 140 160 100 Hare: All delrelaorr ent cow were hosed an the Natal ooFr for eurh or the three categories (land, hard and soh roes) divided 6r 500...1100 sq. Fr. Sou rre: Trammell Crew(111E Research..201a. Development costs in Los Angeles County are 55% higher than the Inland Empire 31 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Potential Effects of Fee on LDcationa I Decisions Total Development Costs in Western Riverside County Development Costs, Land Values, and Return 'Industrial Per Bldg Sig .Rt. DIRECT Basic Site Work!' Lot Improvements Dire-ct Construction Cost Hard Cost Total. ICIaIREC-T TU I IF Other Development Impact Fees Cither Soft Costs Soft Cost Total $12.13 $37.98 $.12 $1.45 $a.74 $25.24 Total Direct and Indirect Costs $75.35 Developer Return Reviremenl $1168 Lam Va lue $45.75 TOTAL COSTORETURN $136.19 14111(1 Total Development costs in Western Riverside County = $121.10 Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 The proposed fee of $1.28 would increase the total development costs by 1.1% 32 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Comparative Fee Costs Current Average Development Impact Fee Costs Per Square Foot and Proportions in Inland Empire Jurisdictions ss - $5 - $4 - $3 - $2 - Si - r 2% / l_' 956 d5 �o 7ku ei..; 2: •- 11% $d VVRCOG Average Coachella Valley Average San Bernardino County Average ■ Regional Transportation Fees • Water and Sewer Fees • Other City Fees School Fees ■ Other AreafRegional Fees Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 Current average impact fee costs are about $0.80 higher in San Bernardino County, although fees vary greatly by city Implementation of $1.28 fee would make Western Riverside average about $0.50 higher than San Bernardino 33 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Potential Wcationa I Impacts • A potential logistics mitigation fee would likely have limited impacts on demand for warehouse development in Riverside County • It will represent a 1.1 perent increase in total development costs • Total development costs for Los Angeles County will continue to be much higher than for the Inland Empire. • Impact fees are generally higher in San Bernardino County compared to Riverside County, although fees vary widely • The logistics fee would make the average for Western Riverside higher than San Bernardino. • Any impacts could be affected by offsetting changes in development costs in San Bernardino County and in other regions in the Southern California. 34 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Next Steps 35 Regional Logistics FEE STUDY Next Steps • Approve the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study • The Commission's current governing authority does not allow for fees to be collected directly by the Commission. • Should the Commission decide to pursue a fee program, staff will return with an implementation plan. 36 3aop dIZ AlI� 133kI1S _5179h-4S k 076 :'ON 3NOHd 3aop d1Z ALTO =99311aalf SS3Nisn9 dflOa'J / NOLLtlZINtlDbO / A3N3'JV d0 3W1/N � °IVN =J111111V3931Id311 J.33E11S rON 3N0Hd aa� s?.14t�sp-1 MS3baall M411''Jat1S %./49�� :3WVN :W311 t/4N3JV (VaN3'JV all NO 4318I1 SV) Iowa n�� rON W311 V4N3'JV =S1N31NINO3 3nand ao 1o3rsns MIN31NINO3 onend �1 )Ia3Ha :3ida aliV09 3H11 do )1S313 3F110.1111N8nS aNV H3V130 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board DATE: April 30, 2019 SUBJECT: G.C. 84308 Compliance — Potential Conflict of Interest California Government Code 84308 states a Commissioner may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from a bidder or bidder's agent. This prohibition does not apply to the awarding of contracts that are competitively bid. The Commission's procurement division asks potential vendors to disclose any contributions made to the campaigns of any Commissioner as part of their submitted bid packets. As an additional precaution, those entities are included below in an effort to give Commissioners opportunity to review their campaign statements for potential conflicts. Please note the entities listed in this memo are not encompassing of all potential conflicts and are in addition to any personal conflicts of interest such as those disclosed on Statement of Economic Interests — Form 700 or prohibited by Government Code Section 1090. Please contact me should you have any questions. Agenda Item No 9D — Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the Completion of Project Approval/Environmental Document for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project -Southern Extension Consultant(s): Kip Field, Vice President HDR Engineering, Inc. 2280 Market Street, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Tara Bve rl From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 10:55 AM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Lisa Mobley; Anne Mayer; JOHN STANDIFORD Subject: RCTC: May Commission Agenda - May 8, 2019 Good morning Commissioners, The May Agenda for the Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 8 @ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://rctcdev.info/uploads/media items/may-commission-agenda-may-8-2019.original.pdf Also attached for your review and information is the conflict of interest memo and form. w Conflict of Interest Memo.p... F{:fc w Conflict of Interest Form.pcdf Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara Byerly Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 951.787.7141 W 1951.787.7906 F 4080 Lemon St. 3rd FI. 1 P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 rctc.org f in 0 i Tara B erl From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tara Byerly Wednesday, May 01, 2019 10:59 AM Tara Byerly Lisa Mobley RCTC: May Commission Agenda - May 8, 2019 Good morning Commission Alternates, The May Agenda for the Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 8 @ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://rctcdev.info/uploads/media items/may-commission-agenda-may-8-2019.original.pdf Respectfully, Tara Byerly Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 951.787.7141 W 1951.787.7906 F 4080 Lemon St. 3rd FI. 1 P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 rctc.org f VP in i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET MAY 8, 2019 NAME AGENCY EMAIL ADDRESS A rz:r 0 l3 AX/1,4'/(�G Aar�v✓rrsii=MNi�. �L{%�LC �.�'��R'*�� Cam. n-.>b--��°"'�1�'.J /Gpy4 ,y�r� y.Avhsor/T a ii ---1"-bi, )2) to 6ii Z-7.91-1/- 1,, -17i./ M 3 i/ -R.;,r-i-r--R4L L11, ;'pe, q (h4OL- 6Ci�G(i�— • A/Weino ✓f�2"� if/C4Yl'kf.�/v�/dj (3-,,-Qiik\-,-i/� (�7W /fflf' �'oaU' � 15(VA,,) .� Ur'[�/-°2 LET //``'� �.Fl/�`Qt? ,) 003 A OZPL1.-eT-A ..00'71-- 5th CAL‘tm,e54? � ��T� 70 - kiki,1,-, -/ r c� .��/Y(l�-- I Mi G .�f. !/rNt,,, .r s f?-rziti's - JAZ 6e.--, - ,,/,/,a-- V. /44 4"thig P 2- 4.6, "- � /cc, reti, -..?,4- ct a— ChnS�C�'1 (FA-�r�ir��, op. �-rails c, i of -A 4,,A,,ro.t, c::,,pk_, A/_.--- ip://,/ Ar/v01-7 t✓.�4091i.)R i/s4N», 1-1-06,�l (� �/�tu-M 7��7/C�7//FlTyr/f'C/LlS Cnl Y/Si .L ;fig lTT++/1 / fe �ST q ° - - - 1 _ vtyptp— gJ1)97,/.' ✓ten -SIK 4.,� ,(--_.s ,Si34,4.1( rc.,7,0A) A- t3iGL Z//n44-- frAi ii----/vifFc LA sic, \\A , a.--,(----= -..\--,-) ',,-. sp„.„,„ _.7,0 (2-i ,N...)E.- ..- ‹C a rr ifriir--» -n2-.11\ 0-e---- e ,;/ rk-"-47,3 e , ,,,,,,,,,, -70% .2_ -,-.1-:2iNij (0c-61\_5 w44 iNtooq Faimito A.) -5-NyT, L O ,Si E'^Pvk \V-v,"qt4 &el Co K C ii( �ivJ\4a'�C� i�r' Iai UI(6�TV\ftSfal rf'�iq@t.,,�,eP- 4ik�I-It� .� 1 �IOKIY�1 G/ l.A ��i. ItYk- v l I vv RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL MAY 8, 2019 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I % CI County of Riverside, District II PI O County of Riverside, District III 121 O County of Riverside, District IV 21 O County of Riverside, District V ICI O City of Banning 7 CI City of Beaumont RI O City of Blythe CI 2/ City of Calimesa 21 O City of Canyon Lake 0 0 City of Cathedral City 21 O City of Coachella Zi CI City of Corona PI O City of Desert Hot Springs 91 O City of Eastvale 0 O City of Hemet LI O City of Indian Wells A O City of Indio 21 O City of Jurupa Valley a C:3 City of La Quinta A CI City of Lake Elsinore 71 O City of Menifee 21 ro City of Moreno Valley gi O City of Murrieta 0 CI City of Norco 0 CI City of Palm Desert ICI O City of Palm Springs rid O City of Perris Z O City of Rancho Mirage 71 O City of Riverside 0 O City of San Jacinto 0 O City of Temecula .A CI City of Wildomar ,0 O Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 0 O 3floa dIZ ALIO 1331:11S rCAN 3NOHd Sao dIZ 01)--ciok) 6')?E1). TE -z9.5-: Ally 3NoHd VCIN391/ ao i33rans =s93110011 SS3 N lsns &MHO / No11VZINb91:10 / A3N3OV d0 31NVN 1 :DNwNasaadaa 1331:11S a--jo )soo w7Dpvor)1\ (VON39V 3H1 NO 431517 SV) rON W311 VaN3'JV =ssnmav :3 WWN =s1N3UVwo3 onand SIMINuu03 onand do 133rans 3133H3 =3idv aavoe 3Hil AO )11:1313 31HJ. of swans aNv H�v_�a` __ _ � _1= _ 3003 dIZ AJJ3 '?svYd1 4p rON 3NONd Qi_92,� .s7i«%aW/'`iois9y<i f/1r41 7Y fi-6,roN 3N0Hd �f ...$10/aS 4iyattig& V I� :31AItlN J.33!!1S ?Itidridr =ssaaaav ssaNisna L/ :JNI1N3S31:1d3!1 /7 133l�1S dno, Noll 'Jao / A3N3DV r re .1/ �A °Y°11W- 1{f 1011-1711S- Yilin PAO co =IA1311 VaN3DV d01331 ans -�i =SS3EIOOV (VGN3DV 3H1 No 031S11 SV) rON IIU311 VaN3DV :91N3w1NO3 onend :91N31Nwo3 nand d0133P8AS H33H3 �p'frU6/01 O a!!f/08 3H1 d0 H1:1313 3H1 O111WIMS aNV H3V13a =31Va