Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 15, 2003 Technical AdvisoryTIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITT MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. September 15, 2003 RECORDS (p515/1l Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS John Andoh, PVVTA Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Louis Flores, Caltrans District 08 Bob French, City of Calimesa Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Terry Hagen, City of Desert Hot Springs Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Cis Leroy, SunLine Transit John Licata, City of Corona Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Ray 0' Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore Kahono Oei, City of Banning Anne Palatino, RTA Juan Perez, County of Riverside Joe Schenk, City of Norco Ken Seumalo, City of Murrieta Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Cathy Bechtel, Director Transportation Planning & Policy Development 11.36 .Z RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: September 15, 2003 LOCATION: Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the clerk of the Commission at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTION 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 21, 2003 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on the agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. ITS ARCHITECTURE PLAN PRESENTATION 6. COUNTY CMAQ REPROGRAMMING REQUEST (Attachment) 7. CITY OF MURRIETA TEA FUNDING REQUEST (Attachment) 8. STIP/TEA 3 FUND TRADES (Attachment) 9. STIP UPDATE 10. 2003 DRAFT CMP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 15, 2003 Page Two 11. RTIP UPDATE (Attachment) 12. RTP UPDATE 13. CETAP UPDATE (Attachment) 14. TUMF UPDATE 15. SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS 16. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 17. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be October 20, 2003 in Riverside.) MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, July 21, 2003 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) was called to order at 10:00 a.m., at the Banning City Hall, Banning, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Others Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Mike Gow, City of Hemet Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Cis Leroy, SunLine Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Bill Mosby, Caltrans Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Ray O'Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore Kahono Oei, City of Banning Anne Palatino, RTA Tom Rafferty, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake Ken Seumalo, City of Murrieta Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Dale West, WRCOG John Wilder, City of Beaumont Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Ken Lobeck Tanya Love Shirley Medina, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July 21, 2003 Page 2 3. Approval of Minutes The Minutes dated June 16, 2003 were approved. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. SB 821 PROJECT APPROVALS Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, indicated that the SB 821 project extensions requested at the July 9, 2003 Riverside County Transportation Commission meeting were approved. 6. 2004 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Tanya Love, RCTC, summarized the information that was attached to the agenda item. She announced that seven of the eight Short Range Transit Plans were approved at the June 11, 2003 Commission meeting. She stated that the cities of Banning and Beaumont continue to work together to have a seemless transit agency, meaning that anyone wanting to ride the public buses will board without knowing whether it is a Banning or Beaumont transit vehicle. The fare structure and appearance of the transit system will be the same. She further stated that Beaumont is reporting a 7.4% fare box return and that they need a 10% fare box return, which RCTC is monitoring carefully. If they don't meet their fare box, their funding will be decreased or the city would make up the difference for the year they would be exempt. Ms. Love highlighted operations at the cities of Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency and Regional Commuter Rail. She stated that the SRTP for SunLine has been put on hold. 7. STATUS OF STIP/STATE BUDGET Shirley Medina, RCTC, handed out a Draft chart entitled, "STIP Projects — TEA 21 Reauthorization Funding Alternative." She indicated that TEA 21 reauthorization funds will be supplementing local STIP projects. This was an option given to local agencies with STIP projects that are or will be delayed due to the state budget deficit. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July 21, 2003 Page 3 Cathy Bechtel pointed out that most of the local agencies have requested that they keep the same projects using STP funds instead of STIP funds. Once all responses to the funding alternative requests have been received, staff will provide this to the TAC for a recommendation to the RCTC board at their October meeting. Ms. Medina said that CMAQ funding will also be reviewed to supplement STIP funds. For example, the Corona ATMS project would probably be eligible for CMAQ and possibly the Coachella Dillon grade separation. 8. CETAP UPDATE Cathy Bechtel reported that on the Winchester to Temecula Corridor, the final environmental document is completed and we are waiting for the County's general plan to be adopted. On the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino corridor, the CEQA environmental process has been started. Regarding the Orange County to Riverside County corridor, assuming the funds are available an RFP will be out in late summer and Orange County will award a contract probably in early November for the MIS work. On the east -west corridor, Ramona/Cajalco Corridor, at the June Commission meeting, RCTC did approve moving forward with a project level environmental document for Ramona/Cajalco, south of Lake Matthews. An RFP is expected to be out in the September timeframe. RCTC will be the project lead on this. 9. TUMF UPDATE — BALANCES — RCTC PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS Shirley Medina pointed out the Western Riverside Council of Governments Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee report states that as of June 30, 2003 $858,000 had been collected. Dale West, WRCOG, stated that a letter will be sent this week explaining how TUMF funds should be sent to RCTC. 10. PROJECT MILESTONE AND STATUS REPORTS Shirley Medina conveyed that RCTC has to report regularly to the state information regarding project milestones, and she requested that each agency complete the white spaces on the project milestone reports that have been sent electronically to each TAC member. She stated that the Commission has requested copies of the reports and that Ken Lobeck, RCTC, will start sending them out this week. They should be returned Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July 21, 2003 Page 4 by the specified deadline and will be given to the Commission in September. Ken Lobeck handed out an RCTC STIP Milestones and Status Report and indicated that those projects that have already been allocated by the CTC will need updates. He reiterated that only the white cells need to be completed on the form. 11. 2002 RTIP/FTIP UPDATE OVERVIEW Ken Lobeck reminded the TAC that every two years or when a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is adopted, it is necessary to do a full RTIP update. The 2004 update will begin this week with Caltrans regarding state highway projects. He pointed out the general schedule, on the agenda item, to develop the 2004 RTIP/FTIP. 12. 2002 RTIP/FTIP AMENDMENT 04 SUMMARY Mr. Lobeck said that Amendment 03 received federal approval on July 8, 2003; however, there is no letter yet available to download off the SCAG website. It should be available by mid -week. He further stated that 57 projects were submitted in Amendment 04, which will take approximately four months for approval. He further indicated that the next amendment will be in the August/September timeframe. 13. LETTER FROM CALTRANS RE: ADA STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells, said that the letter from Caltrans is reminding the local agencies to comply with ADA standards for new construction and alterations and that each agency should read it. 14. JULY 9, 2003 COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Cathy Bechtel called attention to the new look of the Commission Connection. She said the new format will be used not only for the Commission Connection but for other notices of hot topics. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July 21, 2003 Page 5 15. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Bill Brunet, City of Blythe, asked when the MOU with WRCOG and RCTC regarding the prioritization of projects will happen. Cathy Bechtel responded that WRCOG is moving forward with a recommendation after which RCTC will proceed with prioritization. Ms. Bechtel indicated that the next RCTC full Commission meeting will be next Monday, July 28, 2003 at 1:00. There will not be any committee meetings that day. She further indicated that there will not be an RCTC Commission meeting in August. The September Commission meeting will be September 3, at 11:00. It was decided that there will not be an August TAC meeting. If TAC action is required prior to the September TAC meeting, it can be accomplished by calling a special meeting, via a sub -committee, or by e- mail. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 AM. The next meeting is scheduled for September 15, 2003, 10:00 AM, at Banning City Hall, Civic Center, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. Respectfully submitted, YVIPdt,in Shirley Medina Program Manager AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 15, 2003 TO: FROM: Technical Advisory Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: 2004 County of Riverside CMAQ Reprogramming Request STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: 1) Forward a recommendation to the RCTC Board regarding the County of Riverside's Reprogramming Request. BACKGROUND: The County of Riverside has submitted the attached letter requesting reprogramming $1,510,863 of CMAQ funds that are available through costs savings from previous County CMAQ funded projects and the deletion of four CMAQ projects previously approved by RCTC. The projects that are proposed to receive the additional funds are the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring project and the Route 60/Valley Way East Ramp project. Through the initial project planning these projects were found to require additional work that resulted in significant increases to the project. The Mission Blvd. project was programmed for $235,000 and the cost for the project is now $600,000. The Route 60/Valley Way project increased from $3,507,000 to $4,599,000. This request is satisfactory to RCTC staff since the funds are being shifted to already approved CMAQ projects and consistent with past reprogramming requests. 65101 CB/SM/KLc COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE '`i �4F TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department July 30, 2003. Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-12008 RE: Riverside County's CMAQ Program Dear Mr. Haley: George A Johnson, PE. Director of Transportation tEcE[NED AUG 012003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ) ou1 !IA This letter is to request Commission,approval of changes to some County of Riverside CMAQ projects. This request is to formalize communications which have occurred between our respective staffs in the past regarding the County of Riverside's CMAQ.Program. A number of the County's ISTEA CMAQ funded projects have been -or are estimated to be completed under budget or are proposed to be dropped. Attached is a listing of the County's ISTEA CMAQ projects. The column titled, "PROGRAM RCTC $" shows the amount initially approved -by RCTC based on the project applications. The column titled, "EST. FED. REIMB." shows the amount of Federal funds the project is estimated to expend based on Riverside County's most recent cost estimates. Through the preparation of construction plans for the Mission Boulevard (Opal Street to Wallace Street) Traffic Monitoring project, a need has been identified to increase the programmed CMAQ funding amount from $235,000 to $600,000. Additionally, through the preparation of construction plans for the Route 60Nalley Way Eastbound Ramp project, a need has been identified to increase the funding amount from $3,507,000 to $4,599,000. The County proposes to fund the increase of $365,000 for the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project, and to partially fund the increase of $1,092,000 for the Route 60/Valley Way"Ea"stbound Ramp project, by dropping four of the Cciunty's'CMAQ projects and through savings incurred by eight of the County's CMAQ projects being delivered below budget, as.Iisted below: Projects that are being proposed to be dropped: 1. The Countywide Traffic Signal Coordination Strategy Study, programmed in the amount of $300,000. 2. Automated Traffic Counts at various locations, programmed in the amount of $257,500. 3. Electric Vehicle Purchase at the County Administrative Center, programmed in the amount of $64,500. 4. Isolated Traffic Signals —Timing Optimization Project, programmed in the amount of $75,000. The total CMAQ funds available for reprogramming due to the above four projects being dropped is $697,000. 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740 PO. Box 1090 - Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721 K.16.3 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director July 30, 2003 Page 2 Projects that have been delivered below budget: 5. Mission BoulevardNan Buren Boulevard Route 60/Bellegrave/Pyrite/Rutile project was delivered at a cost of $171,939. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $309,750, resulting in $137,811 being available for reprogramming. 6. Limonite Avenue, Pedley to Mission Boulevard project was delivered at a cost of $321,334. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $480,000, resulting in $158,666 being available for reprogramming. 7. Stetson Avenue, San Jacinto Street to Stanford Street project was delivered at a cost of $45,870. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $200,000, resulting in $154,130 being available for reprogramming. 8. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, Lazy Creek Road, between Bradley and Wintorhawk, was delivered at a cost of $72,505. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $120,200, resulting in $47,695 being available for reprogramming. 9. Limonite Avenue at Felspar Street signal project was delivered at $132,167. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $175,000, resulting in $42,833 being available for reprogramming. 10. Leon Road PM10 paving projects, Olive Road to Simpson Road, and Benton/Keller & Scott/Holland. These two projects were jointly delivered at a cost of $1,680,680. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount $442,500 and $1,420,450, resulting in $182,270 being available for reprogramming. 11. Holland Road PM10 paving projects, Bradley Road to Haun Road, and Murrieta Road to Bradley Road. These two projects were jointly delivered at a cost of $753,699. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $420,000 and $423,907, resulting in $90,208 being available for reprogramming. 12. McCaII Boulevard Traffic Monitoring and Signal Coordination project was delivered at a cost of $31,000. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $31,250, resulting in $250 being available for reprogramming. The total CMAQ funds available for reprogramming due to the above eight projects being delivered under budget is $813,863. The combined funds available for reprogramming from the above twelve projects is $1,510,863. Reprogramming $365,000 for the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project will leave a balance of $1,145,863, that can be reprogrammed to fund the current increase of $1,092,000 for the Route 60Nalley Way Eastbound Ramp project. The County of Riverside respectfully requests RCTC to approve the CMAQ funding reprogramming proposals, and to advise Caltrans of the project funding adjustments to enable us to continue with the delivery of these projects. Eric Haley, Executive Director July 30, 2003 Page 3 If you have any questions, please contact me or Juan C. Perez, Deputy Director of Transportation, at (909) 955-6741. Pte- Juan C. Perez Deputy Director of Transportation Ghorge A. Johnson Director of Transportation RKN:sbw Attachment cc: Supervisor Bob Buster, First District Supervisor John Tavaglione, Second District Supervisor Jim Venable, Third District Supervisor Roy Wilson , Fourth District Supervisor Marion Ashley, Fifth District Shirley Medina, RCTC Juan C. Perez Scott Staley Roy Null RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 7/24/03 FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECT STATUS TRACKING LIST - ISTEA Projects PROGRAM ` EST. FED. PROJECT RCTC $ REIMB. COMMENTS FUND TYPE: CMAQ UMONITE AVE Pedley to Mission Blvd MISSION BOULEVARD Opal St to Wallace St /Traf. monitoring STETSON AVENUE San Jacinto St to Stanford St LIMONITE AVENUE 0 Felspar St ISOLATED TRAFFIC SIGNALS Timing Optimization Project COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL Coordination Strategy Study MISSION BLVD AND VAN BUREN BLVD Rte 60/Bellegrave/Pyrite /Ruble ELECTRIC VEHICLE PURCHASE 0 County Admin Ctr ELEC INFSTRUCTRJLazy Creek Bradley to Winterhawk McCALL BLVD Traff monitor'g & signal coord_ AUTOMATED TRAF COUNTS various locations 480,0.00 235,000 200,000 175,000 75,000 300,000 309,750 64,500 120,200 31,250 257,500 321,334 600,000 45.870 132,167 0 0 171,939 0 72,505 31,000 0 Completed in 94/951 Final Bill Amt Pending Advertisment Project Completed 11/6/01 / Final Bill AmL Completed Dec. 1996 / Final Bill Amt. Drop Drop Project Completed 2/7/00 / Final Bill Amt Drop, Vehicles returned 12/99 Project Completed 2/29/99 /Final Bill Amt. Project Completed 2/7/00 / Final Bill Amt Drop LEON ROAD PM10 442,500 Olive Rd to Simpson Rd 1,680,680 Project Completed 10/16/01 / Final Bill Amt LEON ROAD PM10 1,420,450 Benton/Keller & Scott/Holland HOLLAND ROAD PM10 420,000 Bradley Rd to Haun Rd 753,699 Project Completed 10/16/01 / Final Bill Amt HOLLAND ROAD 423,907 Murrieta Rd to Bradley Rd orals 4,955,057 3,809,193 1,145,864 = BALANCE AGENDA ITEM 7 09/09/2003 11:10 909461604B PAGE 02 CITY OF MURRIETA September 9, 2003 Ms. Shirley Medina, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: Project No. STPLER 5464 (019), Murrieta Hot Springs Road — Madison Ave. to 1-215 Dear Shirley, The city of Murrieta was approved on the FY 01/02 TEA list for a grant of $580,571.00 ($8.53% of project cost) for the above referenced project. The total construction cost is budgeted to be 5607,791.00 ($538,077-00 grant funds). The City of Murrieta has put the project out to bid twice. The first time we received 5 bids but because of irregularities in the bids, the City Council rejected the bids and authorized the project to be re bid. One bid was received the second time in the amount of $799,668.69 which is $199,877.69 over the budget for construction_ The City of Murrieta is requesting RCTC to consider any additional funding that might be available to offset the increase in construction costs necessary to complete the project. I am enclosing the FNM-76 received from Caltrans for your information. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, CC: Ray Meijer, Caltrans s E. Kinley Director of Publ c odes/ City Engineer 26442 Beckman Court * Murrieta, California 92562 phone: 909.301 -.CITY (2489) - fah: 909.698.4509 - web: murtieta_org 9094616048 09/09/2003 DPT OF TRNS 0 JUN. -30' 03 NON) 20:08 Tit -F6 ;VERSION E-76; FEDERAL A ID 0LP LOCATOR PREFIX PROJECT NO 3E12 NO DIST-EA AGENCY ACUTE TIP DATA: M PQ/YEAS DATE STIP REF: URB ANIZED WRB /RtAL BRIDGE BIOS AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION SUMMAR Y PROGRAM 03 -RI'T-0-F.RTA STPLE R PX03 €C] LOCATION 5464(419) MURRIET; HOT SPRINGS RD -MADISON AVE. 2 OR-92S602L TYPE or PORK NURRIETA MEDIAN L ANDSC APING AND sizes FEI. RANDS 5'00 COME E ) SCAG EXIMPT FR OM FHWA REVIEW 02/06 ENV STUDS OAT. EXCL. - PROG 01/18/D1 RIFT SIMS 1 11120/02 BEGIN MP .000 SAteEN00-RIVER END MP .000 URBAN AREA INV RTE PHASE PE PREV. . OBLIGATION THIS REQUEST SUBTOTA L CAZIFQ1 N1A DEPARTME NT OF TRANSPORTATION PREY. ROTH/AGREE DA TE FE 02/02/1J1 RiN CON 05/22/03 sat mcs OTE APPR CODES 0220 LINE NOS DO 30 31 IMPKV TYPE 15 31 17 MEC. SYS P PROJECT COST FEDERAL COST ACCOST 48,000.00 42,494.00 .00 .00 .0D .00 48,000.00 42.,494.00 .00 PREY. OBLIGATION C ON THIS REQUEST SUBTOTA L TOTAL P2E0 - OB-R.V6204 6 STAT E R :HAR KS .0C 607,791.00 C07,791. 00 555,491,00 .00 53B4O77. 00 538,o71.00 .00 .00 ,00 . 560, Sii.40 STPI R-5464 (019) IS 4N EA SK01 PROJECT AND A PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION NORRIATA NOT SPRI NGS ROA D: [OADISON AVE. TO T -215 --MEDIAN LANDSCAPING AND SL OPE PAVING. FY 01/02 APP ROVED T& A LIST. !CODE 54G4 SEQOBNCE #1 NAB A REQUEST E'OR P T.ININARY ENGINEERING FUNDS AND REIMBURSED WITH Q220 FUNDS (PSEUDO CODE 3TE) AT BB.53k UP TO TRY FEDE RAL AMOUNT SHOWN. 11/21/02 SEQUEN CE 42 SUBMITTED REQUESTING CL iSERtKI LON AND CE. 02/05103 PER C -MAIL TO DISTRICT 12/21!02, THIS RECORD WAS RETURNED 'PENDING SUBMITTAL OF COOPERATIVE AOR,EFI+ENT miT3 CAIMANS. PL 5/12/03 RFS DBIIITTAL OF THE PROJECT REQUIRED AN EHCROA C ENT PERIOD ACS HAS SEEN O BTAINED UNDER 06-02-N-LF-4340. COPY OF ENCROAACFB!UZ4T P83LT RECEIVED IA HQ ON 5/12/03. PL T.IS IS A REQUEST FOR CON STRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION E NGINEEREIG F UNDING. PR ELI14IWT E. VGINErERING FUNDS WARE PREVIOUSLY OBLIGATED . REI MBURSE MIEN Q220 TEA FUNDS ;PSEUDO CODE BTBO} AT 88 .53% OP TO TEE FEDERAL, ANOINTS SH0 fl EqR PRELI1:N MY ETTGINBSRING, CONSTRUCTION, AND CONSTRUCTION ENGIU ERIN^o. PL TOTA1 COSTS PART, COSTS FED. FUNDS LOC AL FORDS {Q220/8'50} .00 ?AGE 2 t 133 w; ST• .TE RE B$ FREL. ENGR. CCNSE_ CO{+iST. ENGR TOTALS $ 46,00C $ 519,840 $ 27,951 S 555, 791 $ 48, 00 $ 579, Bel D $ 27, 95.1 $ 655,191 * 42,494 4 513,332 4 24, 745 4 56 0, 571 norm ORIE TLOW TO PROCSEU WITH C ON PREPARED BY CONSTRUCTION & CENG. REV IEMBO BY AUTHORIZED $Y ELECTRONTO SIG&ATURE DM:MEW sins MEND/MOD SIGitED BY $ 5, 506 $ 66, 508 $ 3,206 $ 75,220 RAY NE L BA PATRICK I UIE P. LOUIS P. LO UIE BRODESSLO BY L H LLAC LAST E'EC+7A ELECTRONIC SIG) 21 WE EXECUTED BY THAN N OECHAMMAD ON 05/27/ D3 O N 05113/03 8-670-6454 ON 05/22/03 0-453-7349 ON 05/22/03 ON 05/22/03 FOR CLTRAMS ON 05/23103 FOR FHWA AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 15, 2003 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: STIP Funding Trade for TEA 21 Reauthorization Funds (STPL or CMAQ) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: 1) Forward a recommendation to the RCTC Board regarding trading STIP funds for TEA -21 Reauthorization funds (STPL or CMAQ) BACKGROUND: Due to the State's budget deficit at least half of the STIP projects programmed in Fiscal Year 2002/03 did not receive allocations and it is expected that the majority of projects programmed in FY 03/04 will not receive allocations due to very limited cash flow levels. Therefore, projects are backlogged awaiting allocations with no availability of funding in sight. In fact, the 2004 STIP does not hold any promises for additional funding capacity and is likely to have very limited funds in the out years, if any. RCTC has provided the lead agencies with STIP projects the opportunity to trade local State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds for TEA 21 reauthorization funds, Surface Transportation (STP) or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) funds. Although the reauthorization of TEA 21 will be delayed, it is likely that funds will be available sooner than STIP funds. RCTC sent a letter to lead agencies with STIP projects regarding their preference to trade or substitute projects for STP or CMAQ funds. The preference of each lead agency is attached. Staff will forward the recommendation of the TAC to the October 8, 2003 Commission meeting. Upon approval, staff will then proceed with deleting the projects from the STIP and adjusting the RTIP/FTIP to reflect the fund source changes. STIP Projects - TEA 21 Reauthorization Funding Alternati ve RCTC Appro ved Projects for STIP Funding - On State Hwys, Local Arterials Agency STIP Protect DRAFT Proposed Funding with STPL (000's) Reauthorization Project STIP $ (000'sj FY in STIP FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Blythe Hobsonway Intake Blvd Widening and Hobsonw/Intake Signal $ 1,875 03/04 1875 Lovekin Rehabilitation w — Cathedral City Ramon Rd Improv. Ramon Road $ 1,385 05/06 ) 1385 Coachella Dillon Rd Grade Sep Dillon Rd Grade Sep $ 4,559 06/07 M4559 Dillon Rd Widening Dillon Rd Widening $ 2,117 06/07 2117 Corona Lincoln Improv. Lincoln Improv. $ 671 03/04 671 ATMS ATMS $ 1,990 03/04 _ 1990 1-15 Magnolia IC improv. 1-15 Magnolia IC Improv. $ 6,418 06/07 6418 Desert Hot Springs Pierson Blvd Improv. - Pierson Blvd $ 627 02/03 627 Indio Indio Blvd Improv no response yet $ 325 02/03 325 1-10/Jefferson IC Improv I-10/Jefferson IC Improv $ 10,710 not in STIP 10710 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Improv Perris Blvd Improv $ 3,184 05/06 3184 Reche Vista Realign Reche Vista Realign $ 1,967 06/07 1967 - Murrieta I-15/Calif Oaks lc Improv Project to remain in STIP $ 7,366 05/06, 06/07 - Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage Monterey Ave Widening TBD $ 2,125 04/05, 05/06 == 744 1381 ,ter Palm Springs Gene Autry Trail -Bridge and Road Widening Gene Autry Tr - Bridge,Widen - $112 allocated for PE $ 1,730 02/03, 04/05 1730 - Indian Cyn Widening Indian Cyn Widening $ 2,199 02/03, 04/05 2199 I-10/Indian Ave IC Imp. 1-10/Indian Ave IC Imp. $ 15,262 not in STIP - 4000 11262 STIP Projects - TEA 21 Reautho rization Funding Alternative RCTC Approved Projects for STIP Funding - On State Hwys, Local Arterials Agency DRAFT Proposed Funding with STPL STIP Project Reauthorization Project STIP $ (000's) FY in STIP M FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Riverside Van Buren Blvd Widening Van Buren Blvd Widening $ 3,465 03/04-06/07 25 221 439 2780 Riverside County Valley Way/Armstrong Widening and Recons TBD $ 1,564 04/05 1564 Limonite Widen, Recons. Limonite Widen, Recons. $ 3,158 04/05 3158 Miles Ave/Clinton Widen Miles Ave/Clinton Widen and Bridge $ 2,040 05/06 2040 Van Buren Median, Bus turnout TBD $ 1,323 02/03 -__ -- 1323 - Jefferson Bridge and Road Widening Funding w local funds, Future 2004 STIP substitution project - not in STIP r R De Frain Blvd. Reconst. De Frain Blvd. Reconst. $ 810 not in STIP I Temecula Butterfield Stage Rd Ext. TBD $ 2,720 04/05 2720 Total STIP Replacement $ $ 79,590 $ 12,764 $ 11,053 $ 13,135 $ 34,462 Amounts in bold are programming years specified by lead agencies. Amounts not in bold are based upon programming year in the 2002 STIP. RCTC staff will continue to work with local agencies to identify year for programming . Projects cannot begin phases in which reimbursement will be requested until TEA 21 is reauthorized and RCTC gives notice to proceed with obligation of funds . AGENDA ITEM 11 - Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 15, 2003 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst SUBJECT: 2004 RTIP Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: 1) Receive Notification of the 2004 RTIP Update Development and Submit Project Reviews and New Projects by November 7, 2003. RTIP Development Background Approximately every two years the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is required to update the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) to reflect the most recently adopted long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2004 RTIP Update is underway and will reflect the 2004 RTP that is scheduled for adoption by SCAG in April 2004. It is anticipated that the 2004 RTIP Update will receive federal approval in October 2004. Once the RTIP is approved by the federal agencies it becomes part of the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The RTIP is the vehicle to receive federal/state funds and project approvals. The 2004 RTIP will implement the first six years (2004/05 - 2009/10) of the 2004 RTP. Therefore, projects that are planned for implementation in the 2004/05 — 2009/10 timeframe are required to be in the RTIP to receive federal funds and approvals. Projects programmed in the first three years (2004/05 — 2006/07) must have committed funding. Projects programmed in the outer years (2007/08 — 2009/10) should have reasonably expected funding. Under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Transportation Conformity Rule, SCAG is required to conduct a conformity analysis to determine that the RTIP conforms to the state air plans. In other words, the RTIP cannot generate emissions that exceed the air standards for the region. Conformity Analysis The conformity determination consists of the following three tests: 1. Emissions Budgets Each of the six county transportation commissions in the SCAG region provides SCAG with specific project information that is entered into the RTIP database. A transportation computer model is used to simulate traffic patterns based on these projects including demographic and socio-economic data. The model produces various data that is used to determine emissions generated by the RTIP. 2. Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) As indicated in the Transportation Conformity Rule, Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are given a high priority status and TCMs, must be implemented in a timely manner. The following project types are considered TCMs: High Occupancy Vehicle Improvements, Transit/System Management, Information Services, and other TCMs specifically identified in an adopted air plan. If a TCM project cannot be implemented or will be significantly delayed, a lengthy substitution process will be initiated that will involve the lead agency, RCTC, and SCAG. The substituted project(s) must provide equal or greater emissions reductions than the project that is being replaced. 3. Financial Constraint The Financial Constraint test demonstrates that the region has the financial means to implement the projects in the RTIP. Transportation revenues must support projects programmed per fiscal year. No overprogramming is allowed. County Transportation Commissions are required to submit a financial resolution certifying that funds are committed for each project. If SCAG can not determine conformity, then federal funds and approvals will be halted with the exception of exempt projects (non capacity enhancements) and TCMs. Project Reviews and New Project Submissions The RTIP Update involves the review of existing projects, additions of new projects, and deletions of completed projects. Since RTIP Updates occur approximately every two years, it is very important for lead agencies to include new capacity enhancement projects at this time. Transportation projects that must be included in the RTIP are projects that meet one or more of the following criteria: • On the State Highway System ■ Federally Funded ■ Regionally Significant (regardless of fund source) ■ Requiring Federal Approval Projects not meeting the above criteria do not need to be included in the. RTIP. Contact Shirley Medina or Ken Lobeck with any questions regarding project eligibility. Riverside County 2004 RTIP Update Process Step 1 Step 2 During September, RCTC staff will send out project detail reports (TIP sheets) for agencies to review and adjust if necessary. TIP sheet adjustments (e.g. fund swaps, description modifications, completion date changes, etc.) require a sufficient reason for the change. Local agencies must submit their reviews to RCTC by November 7, 2003. Staff will also send the New Project Submittal form for new projects via electronic mail. The New Project Submittal form must also be submitted to RCTC by November 7, 2003. Note: STIP funded project TIP sheets will not be included as their review and update is already occurring through a separate process. After review of initial submittals, staff will add comments or questions on the TIP sheets/New Project forms and send to lead agencies for further clarification if necessary. Staff will also notify lead agencies of additional supporting materials (e.g. project exhibits, etc.) needed to submit with the project(s) for transportation modeling purposes. Step 3 If necessary, follow-up project review meetings will be held between RCTC staff and the lead agency to address outstanding issues. New Project Submissions - Lead agencies will need to complete and submit the RTIP New Project form to RCTC by November 7, 2003. The form is available electronically and will be sent to each TAC member. New projects will require specific information, especially those that are capacity enhancing (e.g. detailed description, project limits, number of existing and proposed lanes, maps, etc.). Contact Ken Lobeck with any questions regarding the form. Project Detail Report (TIP Sheet) Reviews - Lead agencies will need to complete the TIP sheet reviews and submit to RCTC by November 7, 2003. In reviewing TIP sheets, project lead agencies should closely review the following information for accuracy: 1. Completion Date: Does the Completion Date accurately reflect the construction completion date for highway improvement projects, or the vehicle delivery date for transit system vehicle procurements? 2. Environmental Document and Document Date: Is the environmental document correctly stated for the project? And, does the environmental document date accurately reflect when the environmental document will be signed -off? 3. Description: a. Does the project accurately reflect what the project will accomplish and closely parallel the description for the environmental document? b. Does the description accurately state the project location, limits, and cross streets for the project? 4. Project Limits - Applies to projects on the State Highway System: Are the stated limits correct? 5. Fund Types, Fund Years, and Costs: a. Does the project include all required federal, state, and local fund types? b. Are the correct fund amounts programmed in the correct fund element (e.g. Engineering, R/W, and Construction)? c. Are the required funds programmed in the correct years? d. Is the total project cost accurately stated? e. If the project is 100% locally funded and must be programmed in the RTIP, and will be in the first three years of the TIP (FY 04/05, 05/06, and/or 06/07), has the lead agency formally committed the funds for the project (e.g. city/agency resolution or minute action)? 6 Project Status Update: All carry-over projects from the 2002 RTIP will require a status update. A status update code list will be provided to the lead agency. The selected status code will then be programmed in the "Element" field on the TIP sheet. AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Action Plan for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the proposed Action Plan for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor (CRC); 2) Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop a Project Study Report, Project Report and a project level environmental document for the proposed Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project; 3) Authorize staff to negotiate the scope, schedule and cost with the top ranked firm resulting from the selection process; and, 4) Direct staff to bring back the results of the selection process and contract negotiations for the Commission's consideration of a contract award. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 11, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document. Staff was directed to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on schedule, budget, and implementation. OVERALL APPROACH We will be following the federally required process for completion of project approvals and environmental documentation (PA&ED). We are fortunate to have CETAP identified under President Bush's Executive Order 13274 for Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Reviews. This recognition has resulted in tremendous staffing support from all the federal agencies involved in the first phase of the project; we expect this active participation to continue through Agenda Item 7 the completion of the project. The agencies provide an over the shoulder look during the environmental and pre -engineering phases and will provide assistance in obtaining environmental permits including: Section 404, Section 401, and Section 7. Early in the PA&ED phase of work, a Project Study Report (PSR) and accompanying Project Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR) will be completed to provide a funding document for RCTC to be able to access FHWA and Caltrans funding. At the end of this phase of work, a Project Report (PR) will be completed. Although much of the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor alignment was analyzed in the Tier 1 draft environmental document for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Corridor, significant work will be required as part of this project level effort to develop the detail needed to adopt a precise alignment and secure construction level environmental approvals. The overall action plan for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor involves three major components: public outreach, engineering and environmental. Included in the attachment is a more detailed description of the engineering and environmental elements. Public Outreach A major transportation project such as the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor requires a significant public outreach effort to ensure that there is an open ongoing dialogue with public agencies, the communities affected by the project, and other key stakeholders. In order for RCTC to receive meaningful input on the project, consistent information about the project needs to be disseminated on a regular basis. Many of the tools successfully applied in the development of the RCIP may be applicable to the Cajalco Ramona Corridor, including use of a project website, issuance of regular newsletters and press releases, and comprehensive noticing of public meetings. Focused outreach activities and forums such as the Small Working Group will continue for the Cajalco Ramona Corridor, requiring ongoing support from RCTC and consultant team staff. Staff also recommends that a focused RCTC work group involving the County and the affected cities (Corona, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto) be formed to keep the local agencies engaged throughout the project development process. Engineering The engineering work conducted in support of the HCLE Tier 1 EIS/EIR was done on a very broad scale. Over 100 miles of east -west alternative corridor routes were developed for this effort. The engineering developed a horizontal alignment Agenda Item 7 defined by a "bandwidth" for right-of-way preservation ranging from 500 to 1,000 feet in width. USGS topographic mapping was used for initial engineering, which is at a scale unsuitable for establishing a precise alignment and right-of-way. The mapping of the alternatives was done on an aerial photo base. The Cajalco-Ramona Corridor is initially viewed as a parkway, which, if required in the future, can be later expanded to a freeway level facility. The initial number of lanes will be determined by the transportation demand calculated during the modeling phase in conformance with FHWA requirements. However, based on past CETAP traffic studies, the Corridor is envisioned to be a six -lane facility with geometric suitable to accommodate freeway level speeds. The facility can be upgraded later to accommodate additional lanes, transit or rail by widening to the center -median of the facility. Typical sections will be determined for the initial phase of construction, i.e., parkway facility and the ultimate phase of construction, i.e. freeway facility. Typical sections providing additional right of way for areas with frontage roads or in large cut or fill sections, will also be developed. Much more detailed engineering will be required to provide the basis for the environmental impact studies required for a "project" or "construction" level environmental document. Completion of a "30 percent" level of design is necessary to establish a precise horizontal and vertical alignment for the selected alternative, as well as evaluating any necessary design variations before the project goes into final design. The scope of work for the engineering effort will need to include the following elements: - Surveys and Mapping - Transportation Modeling -Alternatives Definition - Roadway Design -Right of Way Engineering Environmental - Geotechnical Engineering - Structural Engineering - Hydraulic Engineering - Utility Coordination As with the engineering, although a substantial amount of environmental data collection and analysis was performed for the HCLE Tier 1 EIS/EIR, much more detailed analysis will be required to achieve project level environmental approvals under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Much of the base data developed for the Tier 1 studies will still be useful for the project level analysis. Agenda Item 7 The following highlights some of the key considerations and elements of the project level environmental effort: -NEPA/CEQA Requirements - Technical Study Requirements -NEPA/404 Integration Process - Environmental Streamlining - MSHCP Process - Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) SCHEDULE Typically, the PA&ED component of a project can take from four to eight years. Based upon research conducted by FHWA on documents prepared over the last 30 years on the length of the NEPA process, the average time for processing an EIS is 4.6 years; however, for more recent documents the duration has been closer to six years. The estimated time frame for this EIS approval is 36 months, starting from the issuance of the Notice of Intent in May 2004, to approval of a Record of Decision in May 2007 (these are the milestones that FHWA uses to measure the time required for EIS approval). The 36 -month NEPA process estimated for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor is highly aggressive considering the size of the project (40 miles in length) and the significant community and natural resource issues to be addressed through this process. The proposed schedule incorporates means and methods to ensure "environmental streamlining". These methods are similar to the processes used in the current CETAP process: e • • e Continue a working group consisting of all the resource agencies, which will foster agency coordination and collaboration. Continue with a partnership agreement, which fosters expedited decision -making across all the agencies. By working together in a partnership, resource agencies and transportation agencies improve upon the decision -making process while safeguarding the environment. Continue to bring high-level officials to the table to address immediate issues and track the progress of the project. Continue the use of concurrent agency reviews of plans and documents. Because this process stems from the larger Riverside County Integrated Project to integrate land use, transportation and conservation planning for the future development of the County, this next phase will have the benefit of an already Agenda Item 7 adopted conservation plan. The recently adopted MSHCP for western Riverside County provides some of the mitigation for this corridor and provides a framework to address habitat and species issues. BUDGET The cost to complete the necessary funding and construction approval documents can vary greatly depending upon the complexity of the project. A general Caltrans "rule of thumb" assumes that the PA&ED documents are generally about 8% of the cost of construction. Using this assumption, this next phase of work could cost up to $40 million (construction assumed at $500 M). However, we believe that the actual costs will be significantly less given that at least half of the project will be considered as a "road widening". Additionally, since this project is identified under President Bush's Executive Order for environmental streamlining, we expect to receive continued cooperation and coordination from the Resource Agencies; this should assist in cost and schedule containment. An estimate of the project cost will be made after completion of contract negotiations with the top ranked firm. Staff cannot, however, predict what new regulations or requirements may be put in place during the projected 36 month duration of this project phase and their resulting impacts on schedule and cost. NEXT STEPS (IMPLEMENTATION) Current Contract As a result of the June RCTC Board action, we have begun work to accelerate the CETAP east west corridor to provide project level documentation. The current contract lays the groundwork to launch a new contract, which will begin the project level environmental documents for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor in January 2004. Under the current contract we are laying the framework for a smooth transition from the CETAP east -west corridor work to the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project level environmental documents. We are continuing the engagement with the resource agencies working on a preliminary purpose and need statement. CRC PA&ED Contract The awarded consultant team will begin familiarization with the project by attending meetings with all resource agencies, consultants and transportation agencies currently involved. The awarded consultant will participate in the final months of the current contract activities. This will ensure a smooth and seamless transition into the continued contract. Agenda Item 7 The CRC PA&ED contract will launch the development of project level environmental documents for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor. This contract will result in construction -level environmental clearance, including applicable permits. This contract will also provide the appropriate level environmental and engineering documents to support federal, state and local funding for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. Final Design and Construction The final phase of the project will be final design and construction of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative as determined in the Final EIR/EIS for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor. RCTC may choose to build the facility in segments as needed and as funding becomes available. RCTC may also choose to build the facility using an interim cross section that can be built out to an ultimate cross section as needed in the future. The final design and construction could be issued as a conventional Design -Bid - Build contract, i.e., a Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&.E) contract, followed by the construction contract, which could be broken down into segments and multiple bid packages. The second option would be to use a Design Build approach, which can facilitate saving time and may save money on a project. of this size. The project could be phased based on available funding and the need to support growth in the area. SELECTION PROCESS Since the project is approximately 40 miles long, Staff is considering breaking up the project into two segments for delivery of the Project Report and environmental documents for each segment. The logical dividing point is the 1-215 crossing which occurs at roughly the middle of the 40 mile project. The resulting project on the east between SR 79 and 1-215 can be characterized as a roadway widening using the existing Ramona Expressway alignment. The resulting project on the west between 1-215 and 1-15 can be characterized as a realignment project with a significant portion of the alternatives to be studied believed to fall on new alignment. The same RCTC/Bechtel management team would control both projects so that dividing the projects would only act to accelerate the approval process by allowing more resources to efficiently work on the project. Acceleration of the approval process can result in significant savings to the final cost of the project in right-of-way savings alone. Agenda Item 7 The Selection Committee will be composed of representatives from RCTC, County of Riverside, Caltrans and Bechtel. The request for proposal will follow the calendar of events shown below. The proposal will request information on team composition, experience, project approach and insights into the challenges of delivering the CRC project. CALENDAR OF EVENTS FOR THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Item Date Project Request for Proposals is issued 09/04/03 Proposals are Due 10/16/03 Short List Notification 10/30/03 Consultant interviews are held 11/13/03 Recommendations to Committee 11/24/03 Recommendations to Commission for Award 12/10/03 Anticipated Notice to Proceed 01/12/04 Attachment: Scope of Work for the Engineering and Environmental Efforts Agenda Item 7 SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFORTS The scope of work for the engineering and environmental efforts will need to include the following elements: Engineering Surveys and Mapping. One of the basic elements of any project level engineering effort is the development of detailed topographic base mapping (typically with 1 foot contours for the topography). This is developed through the use of aerial surveys with established horizontal and vertical control points. The base mapping provides the detail to lay out precise alignments as well as providing an accurate base to estimate grading quantities, cut and fill slopes, etc. This mapping is also used extensively in the environmental analysis; e.g., the contour mapping allows for accurate calculation of noise impacts and the identification of any needed soundwalls. Transportation Modeling. The project will require detailed transportation modeling to ensure the facility is right sized, while also ensuring that the major interchange location and local access points to the facility are optimized for the traffic. The modeling will determine the actual number of lanes required for the facility. The traffic modeling will be based on the year 2030 traffic projections. The proposed right of way will allow for expansion in the future if needed. This growth would occur toward the center median. The outside lanes for the initial parkway will be fixed so as not to allow expansion and additional encroachment on residences and businesses. Alternatives Definition. Both transportation and civil engineering will be required to determine the project alignment plan and profile. For purposes of NEPA and the Clean Water Act compliance, a range of off -site alternatives will be evaluated. Detailed traffic analysis will be required to determine the location of service interchanges and local access ramps and the effect on local circulation patterns. In developed areas, different alternatives for access will be developed based on traffic analysis. The initial parkway is envisioned to have direct connections at 1-15, 1-215 and SR -79. There will need to be modified highway access reports for connections to 1-15 and 1-215 submitted to FHWA for approval. Roadway Design. 40 miles of roadway will have to be engineered. This effort will lay out the sections for the initial parkway while providing horizontal and vertical curves to meet Caltrans requirements. For any areas requiring a design exception, design exception reports will need to be submitted to Caltrans. Value engineering will need to be considered and incorporated at the appropriate milestones throughout the project. Agenda Item 7 Right of Way Engineering. Concurrent with the civil engineering to develop the project plan and profile will be a significant amount of right-of-way engineering. This will define specific parcels that will be affected by the project (either by full acquisition, partial acquisition, or temporary acquisition for construction easements) and is critical to developing an accurate cost estimate. Geotechnical Engineering. Given the steep topography in the western portion of the project area, geotechnical studies will be required to assess slope stability, faulting, soil stability, and other geotechnical factors that may influence the project design and the overall project costs. Structural Engineering. Many structures will be required for the project, including roadway undercrossings/overcrossings, drainage overcrossings and other structures, soundwalls, retaining walls, etc. Each structure will require the preparation of an Advance Planning Study in accordance with Caltrans' design guidelines for structures. Hydraulic Engineering. For any drainage crossings (rivers, creeks, streams), hydraulic analyses will be necessary to determine how such a crossing may affect the drainage channel in terms of water flow and scouring of streambed both upstream and downstream. Of particular concern is where the project may impact the base floodplain levels. Size and location of drainage facilities will also need to be determined for handling increased runoff from the project. The developed drainage facilities will also be determined by the expected land use adjacent to and effecting the parkway. Utility Coordination. Along the 40 -mile route, many utilities will be potentially affected (e.g., gas, water, electric, telephone, cable, etc.) and may require relocation or protection in place. Environmental As with the engineering, although a substantial amount of environmental data collection and analysis was performed for the HCLE Tier 1 EIS/EIR, much more detailed analysis will be required to achieve project level environmental approvals under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Much of the base data developed for the Tier 1 studies will still be useful for the project level analysis such as the cultural resource surveys. The following highlights some of the key considerations and elements of the project level environmental effort: Agenda Item 7 NEPA/CEQA Requirements. A project level NEPA/CEQA document requires comprehensive, in-depth analysis of issues with the potential for significant impacts to the human or natural environment. While in the Tier 1 analysis it was sufficient to identify resources as being "potentially affected", a much more rigorous determination of those resources actually impacted will be required in this next phase. This is important both from the standpoint of public disclosure as well as ensuring that mitigation feasibility and cost are incorporated into the project. A NEPA approval is required (the Federal Highway Administration or FHWA is the lead federal agency for the project) due to the federal nexus of new connections to the Interstate highway system at 1-15 and 1-215, as well as the need for a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act. NEPA has many requirements that are standard for any transportation project, and that have been addressed on all other projects on the State Highway system within Riverside County. Some of these special requirements unique to NEPA include, but are not limited to, compliance with: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (addressing resources listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) Section 4(f) of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation Act (addressing avoidance of impacts to public parklands, wildlife refuges, and historic sites) Executive Order 12898 regarding Environmental Justice (requires that federal actions not result in disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations, and that ample opportunity is provided for input into the process by these populations). Technical Study Requirements. The environmental technical studies conducted for the, HCLE Tier 1 EIS/EIR identified the potential environmental impacts occurring within or adjacent to the bandwidth for the 14 different alignment alternatives considered in Tier 1. While a precise determination of impacts (e.g., determination of specific land parcels that would be affected) was not possible in Tier 1 due to the conceptual nature of the alignments, the Tier 1 studies provided an effective comparison of the differences between the alternatives with regard to impacts on land use, habitat, aquatic resources, cultural resources. Approximately 75% of the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor was covered during the Tier 1 phase. Agenda Item 7 As with the project engineering, the project level environmental studies for the Cajalco Ramona Corridor will require a much finer level of detail to accurately disclose impacts to both the human and natural environment, as well as providing the basis for determining appropriate mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce those impacts. Based upon the findings of the Tier 1 studies, key issues to be addressed in the project level studies include community impacts, transportation/circulation, aquatic resources, floodplains, biological/endangered species (especially the effects on the existing SKR reserve area), air quality, noise, hazardous waste, cultural resources, Section 4(f) resources, and environmental justice. Much of the baseline data collected in Tier 1 can be used for these studies, but there will still be a significant amount of new data to be collected and analyzed to support a project level approval. In addition, the area south of Lake Mathews was not evaluated in the Tier 1 studies, and will require some additional work in comparison to the rest of the Cajalco Ramona Corridor. NEPA/404 Integration Process. In 1994, Caltrans and FHWA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), to integrate the NEPA process with the Section 404 permitting process. The intent of this MOU was to coordinate the alternatives analysis requirements of each process to ensure that a project approved through the NEPA process could also be issued a Section 404 permit as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). The NEPA/404 MOU establishes a formal review process whereby the Corps, EPA, and the FWS must render concurrence on project purpose and need, alternatives, evaluation criteria, and ultimately on the LEDPA. While the intent of the NEPA/404 MOU is sound in terms of integrating the study requirements for NEPA and Section 404 compliance, transportation agencies have often experienced lengthy project schedules due to the combination of the applicable requirements, complex projects, the need to involve numerous agencies, and public controversy. Through RCTC's ongoing coordination with Caltrans, FHWA, and the federal resource agencies through the Small Working Group, a positive foundation has been established for the agencies to work together to expedite the review and concurrence process for the Cajalco Ramona Corridor. Environmental Streamlining. Section 1309 of TEA -21 calls for a coordinated environmental review process to expedite federal highway and transit projects. Executive Order (EO) 13274 signed by President Bush on September 18, 2002, requires that federal agencies work to promote environmental stewardship in the nation's transportation system and expedite environmental reviews of high priority transportation projects. TEA -21 and EO 13274 do not eliminate or reduce the requirements to provide thorough environmental documentation; rather, they focus on ways for federal agencies to improve how they work together and in Agenda Item 7 cooperation with State and local transportation agencies to implement transportation projects. CETAP was one of the first seven projects in the nation to be recognized as a priority project under EO 13274. This status has enabled the CETAP corridors to receive a high level of attention from FHWA and the federal resource agencies in working to expedite the federal environmental approval process. FHWA has confirmed that the Cajalco Ramona Corridor, as a part of CETAP, will continue to receive priority attention pursuant to EO 13274. Many of the "lessons" learned on other projects throughout the nation are being applied to the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor, including the use of a facilitator to help guide agency discussions and assist in dispute resolution. MSHCP Process. A significant component of the work plan for the Cajalco Ramona Corridor will be to assess the effects of the project on the existing Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) reserve area south of Lake Mathews, the Metropolitan Water District's Habitat Conservation Plan and the County of Riverside's newly approved MSHCP. The Cajalco-Ramona Corridor has supporting language in the MSHCP as a covered activity as an arterial roadway along the existing alignment south of Lake Mathews. The expansion and realignment of Cajalco south of Lake Mathews is not a Covered Activity in the MSHCP. The process presented in the MSHCP would allow the realignment south of Lake Mathews to be accommodated without a formal amendment to the MHSCP, assuming appropriate equivalency findings can be made. Concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies with the proposed realignment is required as part of the process. In addition to the consistency/equivalency analysis process in the County's MSHCP, the proposed alignment south of Lake Mathews would likely affect both the existing SKR HCP and MWD's Lake Mathews HCP and discussions will be necessary to accommodate the proposed facility. Any amendments that may be necessary will need to be processed as part of the project level approval for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor. Optimally, this process would be part of the CRC corridor contract to ensure total integration and to achieve cost savings in not having to analyze species impacts twice. The process and possible amendments can be expected to take approximately 12 to 24 months. Direct costs to write and publish the amendment, conduct species surveys and complete the EIS/EIR will be over one million dollars. Because these actions are critical to the completion of the alignment, they would need to be started as soon as possible so as not to impact project schedule. Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), The Corps of Engineers is currently preparing a SAMP for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds. A Draft EIS is currently being prepared for the SAMP and is expected to be available for public review in late 2003. At the end of the SAMP process, there will be Agenda Item 7 watershed areas that will be protected and preserved, as well as areas where future actions will be allowed to occur provided they meet specific criteria developed for protection of the watersheds. The project level work plan will require RCTC to continue working with the Corps to ensure that the Cajalco Ramona Corridor will he a covered action under the SAMP. Agenda Item 7