Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 03, 2003 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BP S? MEETING AGENDA TIME: 11:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, September 3, 2003 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Ron Roberts 1st Vice Chairman: Roy Wilson 2"d Vice Chairman: Robin Lowe Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside James A. Venable, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Art Welch / Sue Palmer / Bill Jenkins, City of Banning Placido L. Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Gregory Schook / John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macnicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Jeff Bennett, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Greg Ruppert, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Mike Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Robert L. Schiffner / Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Jack F. van Haaster / Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert William G. Kleindienst / Chris Mills, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Alan Seman / Ron Meepos, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Director, Caltrans District #8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director RECORDS' Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, pIea u GUIllpleLe aIIU JUIJIIIIL a 1 CJ lIlI1u11y l.dl U Ill LIM'.. Ie111 Ul LIIC I..Ul1Il1ll ll•36.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, September 3, 2003 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside 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. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 28, 2003 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 Committee. 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. 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 3, 2003 Page 2 6A. INTERNAL AUDIT OF SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE SERVICES GROUP Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Approve the selection of Macias Consulting Group, Inc. to perform the internal audit of SunLine Transit Agency and SunLine Services Group; 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate $81,657 of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to fund the audit; and, 4) Approve an increase in the expenditure budget to pay for this audit. 6B. COACHELLA VALLEY REGIONAL ARTERIAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Page 3 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve an increase in the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Budget to allow payment for invoices incurred as of June 30, 2003 in excess of the original budget. 6C. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 4 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending July 31, 2003. 6D. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the quarterly financial statements. Page 8 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 3, 2003 Page 3 6E. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Page 12 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2003. 6F. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview Page 25 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending April, May, and June 2003. 6G. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-003, "A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN (NCCP), APPROVING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP/NCCP, AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS" Page 27 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Making Responsible Agency Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), Approving the Western Riverside County MSHCP/NCCP, and Implementing Agreement and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations". 6H. UPDATE ON EXCHANGE OF PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND MONITORING FUNDS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) Page 97 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update regarding the exchange of funds with SCAG. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 3, 2003 Page 4 61. AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY FOR AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-056, FOR THE REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING OF STATE ROUTE 74, SEGMENT I, FROM DEXTER AVENUE TO 0.5 KM EAST OF WASSON CANYON ROAD Page 99 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize additional contingency, in the amount of $249,354, from $538,546 to $787,900, to cover additional costs associated with Agreement No. 02-31-056 with Riverside Construction, for the realignment and widening of State Route 74, Segment I, from Dexter Avenue to 0.5 Km east of Wasson Canyon Road. The base amount will remain at $10,561,454, but the contingency will increase from $538,546 (5.0%) to $787,900 (7.5%), for a total contract amount not to exceed $1 1,350,000. 6J. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-013 FOR THE VEGETATION REMOVAL ADJACENT TO STATE ROUTE 74 BETWEEN WASSON CANYON ROAD, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AND 7TH STREET, IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Page 102 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 04-31-013 for the Vegetation Removal adjacent to State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County, and 7th Street, in the City of Perris, to TruGreen LandCare L.L.0 in the amount of $248,446.40, plus an approximate 8% contingency amount of $21,553.60, to cover unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $270,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 3, 2003 Page 5 6K. AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY FOR THE RELOCATION OF PACIFIC BELL LINE REQUIRED FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE JACKSON STREET OVER CROSSING FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 AUXILIARY LANE PROJECT Page 109 Overview 1) Authorize additional contingency, in the amount of $13,060, from $26,940 to $40,000, to cover additional costs associated with the relocation of a Pacific Bell Line, required for the reconstruction of the Jackson Street Over Crossing, for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. The base amount will remain at $123,060, but the contingency will increase from $26,940 to $40,000, for a total not to exceed amount of $163,060; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6L. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 04-33-017, AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO AGREEMENT NO. RO-2128, WITH STV INCORPORATED FOR EVALUATION AND INCORPORATION OF NEW SCAG TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL TO COMPLETE NEW STARTS APPLICATION FOR THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE PROJECT Page 111 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-017, Amendment No. 8 to Agreement No. RO-2128, with STV Incorporated for the evaluation and incorporation of the new SCAG travel demand model results to complete the New Starts Application for the San Jacinto Branch Line for an additional base amount of $314,616; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate $314,616 of STA Funds and increase the FY 2003-04 Rail Capital Budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2003-04 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 3, 2003 Page 6 6M. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-019, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-014, WITH GORDON H. CHONG & PARTNERS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES RELATED TO MASTER PARKING STRUCTURE DESIGN OF THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION Page 126 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-019, Amendment No.1 to Agreement No. 03-31-014, with Gordon H. Chong & Partners for the additional studies to support two additional parking structures at the North Main Corona Metrolink Station for an amount of $77,390 for a new contract authorized amount of $394,188 and a new not to exceed amount of $477,390. The existing unused extra work amount of $83,202 shall remain available to the contract; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6N. REPROGRAM STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS ALLOCATED TO SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY AS MATCH FUNDS FOR THE REGIONAL INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION PROJECT Page 140 Overview This item is for the Commission to reprogram $221,000 in State Transit Assistance Funds previously allocated to SunLine Transit Agency to be used as matching funds for the Regional Intelligent Transportation Project. 60. CITY OF BANNING TRANSIT PROGRAM'S REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO UPGRADE ITS CNG FUELING STATION Page 142 Overview This item is for the Commission to allocate up to $50,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the City of Banning's Transit Program for upgrading their CNG fueling station. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 3, 2003 Page 7 6P. AMENDMENTS TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2003 AND 2004 Page 144 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendments to the FYs 2003 and 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert. 6Q. REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF BANNING TO REPROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDS Page 151 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2002-03 SB 821 Funds. 6R. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICE ON STATE ROUTE 60 IN MORENO VALLEY Page 155 Overview 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-45-023 with the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee for the operation of Freeway Service Patrol service on SR 60; 2) Approve Agreement No. 04-45-022, Amendment No. 1 to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement No. 02-45-071 with Pepe's Towing Services, Inc., to add two vehicles to Beat No. 18 along SR 60; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 6S. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 157 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 3, 2003 Page 8 6T. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 174 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 7. ACTION PLAN FOR THE CAJALCO-RAMONA CORRIDOR Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 180 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. 8. ORAL PRESENTATION — OPERATION JUMPSTART Overview This item is for the Commission to receive an oral presentation on Operation Jumpstart from Mark Pisano, Executive Director of Southern California Association of Governments. 9. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 10. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. The Executive Director will provide an update on the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda September 3, 2003 Page 9 11. CLOSED SESSION ITEM — Adjourn to RCTC Conference Room "A" Overview A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 54956.9(a) Names of Parties: Noel Christensen and Citizens Alliance of Loma Linda v. City of Loma Linda et al Case Number: SCVSS 106980 12. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 8, 2003, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, July 28, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Vice -Chairman Roy Wilson at 1:03 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy L. Byrd Mary Craton Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Gregory S. Pettis Robert L. Schiffner Gregory V. Schook Alan Seman John F. Tavaglione Placido L. Valdivia Jim Venable Art Welch Frank West Matt Weyuker Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Juan DeLara William G. Kleindienst Anne Mayer Ron Roberts Jack van Haaster Michael H. Wilson Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Lowe/Schook) to approve of the July 9, 2003 minutes as submitted. Abstain — Pettis 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Vice -Chairman Wilson noted additions/revisions to the following agenda items: • Agenda Item 6P, "Measure "A" Specialized Transit: Taxi Demonstration Program" • Agenda Item 6R, "Commuter Rail Program Update" • Agenda Item 9A and 9B, "State Budget Impasse Impact on Construction Projects" 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Schook/Weyuker) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 6A. TDA AUDITS OF RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Receive and file the financial audits for SunLine Transit Agency and Riverside Transit Agency for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 6B. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending June 30, 2003. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 3 6C. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 AND PROPOSED GOAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003- 2004 1) Adopt 12.05% as its DBE overall annual goal for Federal FY 2003-2004 (from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004); 2) Post the proposed DBE overall annual goal for FY 2003-2004 and receive comments for 45 -days; and, 3) Submit the methodology and FY 2003-2004 goal to Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance. 6D. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO CVAG AND WRCOG Approve the allocation of Local Transportation Funds totaling $223,602 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and $409,938 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work programs. 6E. ORANGE COUNTY - RIVERSIDE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 1) Approve development of a Cooperative Agreement between the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and RCTC for the initiation of a Major Investment Study to develop solutions to address the significant demand for transportation capacity between Riverside and Orange Counties; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6F. PROPOSED FUNDING FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY - RIVERSIDE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY 1) Approve $1.5 million in Surface Transportation Program Funds for the Orange County — Riverside County Major Investment Study; and, 2) Continue to seek alternate funding opportunities for CETAP and staff monitoring costs. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 4 6G. SCAG AGREEMENT FOR COST SHARING TO UPGRADE THE REGIONAL TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-65-010 for Cost Sharing to Upgrade SCAG's Regional Travel Demand Model; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6H. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT FOR STATE ROUTE 71 WIDENING / ANIMAL CROSSING PROJECT 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-66-01 1, Local Assistance Contribution Agreement with Caltrans District 8 allowing Caltrans to claim $10 million of TEA 21 Demonstration Funds as local contribution for the SR 71 Widening/Animal Crossing Project; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement of behalf of the Commission. 61. AUTHORIZATION TO BID REVEGETATION WORK FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT I REALIGNMENT 1) Authorize staff to advertise to receive revegetation bids for the State Route 74 Segment I Highway Improvement Project, from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to approximately 1,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road, in the County of Riverside; and, 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. 6J. AUTHORIZATION TO BID VEGETATION REMOVAL CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE FOR STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT 2 REALIGNMENT 1) Authorize staff to advertise to receive vegetation removal bids for the State Route 74 Segment II Highway Improvement Project, from Wasson Canyon Road to Seventh Street, in the County of Riverside; and, 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 5 6K. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 04-33-012 WITH THE CITY OF CORONA FOR JOINT USE OF EXISTING CITY CONDUIT FROM THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION TO THE STATE ROUTE 91 CALTRANS FIBER OPTICS BACKBONE 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-012 with the City of Corona for joint use of existing city conduit, which will be used to install a fiber optics line, from the North Main Corona Metrolink Station to the SR 91 Caltrans Fiber Optics Backbone, at Main Street, to connect the North Main Corona CCTV Security System to the Downtown Riverside Station Security Monitoring Facility; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6L. FISCAL YEAR 2004 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 1) Approve the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County for FY 2004; and, 2) Authorize SCAG to add $78,340 in projects to the Los Angeles urbanized area's Program of Projects for the Riverside Transit Agency. 6M. FISCAL YEARS 2001-2003 PERFORMANCE AUDIT 1) Authorize the release of a Request for Proposal to conduct a performance audit of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's activities and the seven public transit operators providing services in Riverside County; and, 2) Direct the Audit Ad Hoc Committee to select the consultant to conduct the audits. 6N. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS Reprogram funds to purchase wheelchair securement devices, purchase up -grade amenities for commuter buses, and to cover in - plant bus delivery inspection fees. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 6 60. REQUEST FROM EXCEED FOR MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS MATCH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM Approve allocation of $49,800 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to Exceed, A Division of Valley Resource Center, to provide the required local match for the purchase of six vehicles. 6P. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT: TAXI DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1) Approve the implementation of a twelve-month taxi demonstration program; 2) Allocate up to $87,174 in Western Riverside County Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (DPI) to cover the administrative costs of the program; 3) Allocate up to $612,826 in Western Riverside County Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to cover the cost of taxi services; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 6Q. FISCAL YEARS 2004-2008 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY Approve the FY 2004-08 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Moreno Valley. 6R. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 6S. STATE ROUTE 91 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATE Receive and file the State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 7 6T. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy positions: Support - S 1 140 (Lautenberg , D — New Jersey) as introduced 5/22/03 and HR 2180 (McGovern, D -Massachusetts) as introduced 5/22/03; Oppose - SB 18 (Burton, D — San Francisco) as amended 7/9/03; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 7. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 04-41-014 WITH ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATION OPERATING COMPANY, INC. Diana Kotler, Program Manager, reviewed the Club Ride Program and the scope of the agreement with Entertainment Publication Operating Company. In response to Commissioner Ameal Moore's inquiry, Diana Kotler responded that the program has been in effect about six years and currently has approximately 5,000 members. Commissioner Moore expressed concern regarding the cost of the program in relation to the program's low membership. He felt that for the length of time that the program has gone on and the funding allocated to the program, he expected more participants. Commissioner Robin Lowe requested staff to closely monitor the program and she requested that staff provide the Commission with quarterly updates. M/S/C (Schook/Miller) to: 1) Approve entering into Agreement No. 04-41-014 with the Entertainment Publication Operating Company, Inc., as part of the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program for FY 2003- 04; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 8 8. ORAL PRESENTATION — UPDATE ON THE WINCHESTER TO TEMECULA CETAP CORRIDOR Cathy Bechtel provided an update on the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor highlighting that the County of Riverside's General Plan update and Final EIR must be certified by the Board of Supervisors prior to any action on the Winchester to Temecula Corridor EIR. It is anticipated that the Board of Supervisors will review the General Plan in mid -August. 9. ORAL PRESENTATION — STATE BUDGET IMPASSE 9A. STATE BUDGET IMPASSE — IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the impact of not having a State budget on the delivery of projects currently under construction, as well as those that have been awarded and not yet under construction. He said that all Caltrans construction contracts will be stopped unless short term bridge loans can be established to keep construction projects going. Staff recommends loaning approximately $8.837 million to the State of California. Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted that Kirk Lindsay, Chairman of the California Transportation Commission (CTC), stated that it is a priority for Caltrans to produce an agreement to assure the prompt repayment of funds to agencies providing the loans. Commissioner Jeff Miller requested the Chairman send a letter to the local State legislators indicating the action being taken today by the Commission reflects the commitment local government is making to solve transportation problems and requests support to encourage CTC to enter into this agreement and ensure full reimbursement. Commissioner Bob Buster recommended adding to the letter requested by Commissioner Miller to ask the State to establish ongoing stability for the future as not to threaten transportation projects to this degree. He also requested staff to track the amount of interest that will be lost with this loan. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 9 M/S/C (Miller/Lowe) to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute an agreement with the State of California that assures repayment of funds loaned to support the continuation of needed highway safety and capacity enhancing projects that are either under construction or have been awarded by Caltrans in Riverside County; 2) Authorize approximately $8.837 million in short term (two months) loans to the State of California. Such loans would be made by the Commission making payments on behalf of the State to State contractors working on highway projects in Riverside County; and, 3) Require staff to report monthly to the Commission on the status of the loan and repayment. 9B. STATE BUDGET IMPASSE — STATE ROUTE 60/STATE ROUTE 91 /INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the funding status of the SR60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. Due to the severe financial issues facing the State budget, the Commission has the opportunity to seek AB 3090 approval for up to $34 million to advance the project with repayment in FY 2006-07. The Commission has the financial capacity to provide this amount of funds without impacting existing project development and construction commitments. Eric Haley commended Assemblyman John Benoit for his support of the project through his letter to the CTC. M/S/C (Lowe/Henderson) to: 1) Authorize up to $34 million of Western County Measure "A" funds to advance the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project to construction subject to California Transportation Commission approval of an AB 3090 action to provide a cash repayment of the up to $34 million to RCTC in 2006-07; and, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes July 28, 2003 Page 10 2) Authorize the Executive Director, in consultation with the RCTC officers, pursuant to Legal Counsel's review, to negotiate the deal points for this potential transaction and execute any agreement that may be necessary. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Eric Haley noted that TUMF revenues have reached over $2 million. Vice -Chairman Wilson welcomed back Commissioner Matt Weyuker from his medical leave. Commissioner Weyuker thanked the Commission and staff for their well wishes and thoughtful gifts. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 1:43 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 11:00 a.m., on September 3, 2003, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, tzy`,Vszei—,9"._ 4,J o3_ Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission AGENDA ITEM 6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Internal Audit of SunLine Transit Agency and SunLine Services Group STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the selection of Macias Consulting Group, Inc. to perform the internal audit of SunLine Transit Agency and SunLine Services Group; 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate $81,657 of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to fund the audit; and, 4) Approve an increase in the expenditure budget to pay for this audit. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the July 9, 2003 Commission meeting, staff presented an agenda item that outlined a strategic recovery plan for SunLine Transit Agency and SunLine Service Group (SSG). Six items were outlined to address issued raised in the financial audits as follows: 1) Agreement to suspend adoption of SunLine's FY 2004 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) until agreements are adopted and implemented. (Note: SRTP was placed on hold at the June 11th Commission meeting); 2) Agreement to conduct an independent internal audit of SunLine and SSG; 3) Review issues and timeline for the Triennial Performance Audits of RCTC and SunLine; 4) Development of a strategic recovery plan to strengthen fiscal controls between SunLine and SSG; 5) Reimbursement of funds used to cover SSG administrative charges and the potential transfer of assets to cover bad debt; and, 6) Potential of complete segregation between SSG and SunLine. Agenda Item 6A 1 This agenda item addresses the second item of the plan. On July 17, 2003, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct an independent internal audit of SunLine Transit Agency and SunLine Services Group. Four proposals were received on August 6, 2003. Staff from RCTC and CVAG reviewed the proposals and short-listed three consultants. Six criteria were used to review the proposals as follows: a) Qualification and experience of the firm b) Qualification and experience of the individuals c) Organization of the work and management plan d) Demonstrating an understanding of the needs e) References f) Fees On August 15, 2003, the Audit Ad Hoc Committee, Eric Haley, and John Wohlmuth interviewed the three consultants and selected Macias Consulting Group, Inc. (Macias) to perform the internal audit. Macias specializes in public sector evaluations and is an independent alliance firm of BDO Seidman LLP (BDO). Currently, BDO is the fifth largest professional services firm in the world and serves clients through more than 200 offices in its U.S. distribution network. Their work plan indicates that 593 hours will be spent on the following tasks: • System Control Review of Accounting Systems • Contract Compliance and Cost Allocation Formula for Contractors • Internal Control, Budgeting, Forecasting, Purchasing and Travel • Sales and Purchase Evaluation, Impact Analysis • Exit Conference, Draft Report, Preparation, Presentation Staff is requesting a LTF allocation to cover the costs of this audit. The administrative distribution at the beginning of the year was not intended to cover this comprehensive audit and additional funds are required. Staff is also requesting the approval of a budget adjustment to pay for the audit. Staff had not included this item in its adopted budget and is requesting approval to increase the budget to reflect this expenditure. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N I Year: FY 03-04 Amount: $81,657 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 102-19-65401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ,__ �: -;_:,:) `' :. Date: 08/25/03 Agenda Item 6A 2 AGENDA ITEM 6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Budget Adjustment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve an increase in the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Budget to allow payment for invoices incurred as of June 30, 2003 in excess of the original budget. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program allows for cities to be reimbursed for expenditures incurred based on availability of Measure "A" Funds and approval from CVAG. The FY 2002-03 budget needs to be increased to allow for payment of the expenditures incurred by cities and approved by CVAG. Sufficient fund balance reserves exist to accommodate this budget adjustment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 02-03 Amount: $500,000 Source of Funds: Coachella Measure Regional Arterial "A" Funds Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 1255-72-86405 Fiscal Procedures Approved: _ z "il--- Date: 08/15/03 Agenda Item 6B 3 AGENDA ITEM 6C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager FROM: THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the month of July 31, 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending July 31, 2003. Attachment: Monthly Report — July 2003 Agenda Item 6C 4 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RA ROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION _ ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 07/01/03 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd $37,222,727 $33,722,727 90.6 % $90,490 $7,682,353 22.8% (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 $37,222,727 $33,722,727 90 .6 % $90,490 $7,682,353 22.8% ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Enginee ring/Environ/ROW (RO2041 9954,9966, $69,847,655 $38,514,368 55.1%I $2,337,532 $33,372,835 86.7 % (RO2142) (RO2141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 $69,847,655 $38,514,368 55 .1% $2,337,532 $33,372,835 86.7% ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003 & 3004) $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96.5 % $2,522 $1,007,867 36 .1 % Realignment study & Right turn lanes (RO9961) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96 .5 % $2,522 $1,007,867 36 .1% ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction $11,902,100 $10,374,324 87.2% $28,974 $9,572,745 92 .3 % (RO9101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd Hook Ramp & I/C (RO3008) $2,954,000 $2,954,000 100.0% $0 $2,109,519 71.4 % Mary Street to 7th Stree t HOV design & ROW(3005) $1,274,430 $1,062,025 83.3% $3,940 $511,172 48.1 % Sndwall Landscaping and Plant Establishment $1,603,450 $1,603,450 100.0% $5,704 $876,228 54 .6% (RO 9933,9946,2059,3601) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 $17,733,980 $15,993,799 90.2% $38,618 $13,069,664 81 .7% ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (RO9219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100.0% $59,103 $15,678,997 92.5% 3410,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 $16,946,856 515,946,8561 100.0% $59,103 $15,678,997 92 .5 % Page 1 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDI—URES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINSTAUTH MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO D ATE ALL OC ATION 07/01/03 TO DATE COM MITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95.6% $6,599 $5,711,496 88 .9 % Design Sequencing SUBTOTAL 1-215 $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95.6 % $6,599 S5,711,496 88.9% PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV, (Agreement (03-31-070)) $2,036,698 $2,036 ,698 100.0 % S255,522 $1,533,132 75.3% SUBTOTAL BECHTEL $2,036,698 $2,036,698 100.0% $255,522 $1,533,132 75 .3 % PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 $2,923,177 $2,923,177 100 .0 % $216,4C'1 $2,587,676 88 .5% 2127,2138,2139, 2178,2199 SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE $2,923,177 $2,923,177 100.0% $216,401 $2,587,676 88.5 % COMMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction $26,685,414 $24,943,070 93 .5 % $202,567 $22,829,820 91.5 % (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 513,900,329 $13,900,329 100 .0% $289,724 $10,302,260 74.1% SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL $40,585,743 538,843,399 95.7% $492,291 $33,132,080 85.3% TOTALS $196,917,837 $158,203,132 80.3% $3,499,078 $113,776,100 71.9 % Page 2 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL . .ETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A " LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COM MIT MENT 07/01/03 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $585,320 $0 36.6 % SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 $585,320 $0 36.6% CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,653,808 $0 50.9% Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA $5,212,623 $0 $5,212,623 $2,653,808 $0 50.9% CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $1,074,326 $0 55.5 % CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $734,833 $0 55 .5% CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $2,826,169 $0 55 .5% CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,186,756 $0 55.5 % CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $540,388 $0 36.0% TOTALS $18,806,636 $0 $18,806,636 $9,061,212 $0 48 .2% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as of: 7/31/03 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 6D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: FROM: Riverside County Transportation Commission Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the quarterly financial statements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Revenues Commission revenues for Measure "A" for FY 2002-03 were higher than projected. This was the first year that the Commission received over $ 100 million in Measure "A" sales tax. The Commission received over $102 million in Measure "A" revenues, an increase of 8.9% over the previous year. Measure "A" revenues were 6% higher than projected. Local Transportation Funds (LTF) revenues realized similar gains. Staff expects this growth to continue, however not at such a robust rate. Staff will continue to monitor the income and will inform the Commission if abnormal trends are seen. Interest income was higher than budgeted due to the slower usage of construction funds. The Commission did not receive the budgeted amount of Federal, State, and Local agencies revenues as these revenues are realized on a reimbursement basis. Once the projects have been completed, staff will invoice the respective agencies. All other revenues were received as expected. Expenditures Overall administration expenditures were under budget. This year the Commission had several major events. The two major events were the renewal of the Measure and the move to the new administrative office. As a result the administrative the FY 2003-04 administrative budget is 28% under the FY 2002-03 budget. The program budgets were well within budget except for Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program. The Regional Arterial Program provides reimbursement to the cities for projects they have completed. This program is administered by CVAG and CVAG request reimbursement from the Commission. The Commission Agenda Item 6D 8 provides reimbursement based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. Sufficient funds are available to repay the cities and staff is requesting a budget adjustment in a separate in agenda item. All other budgets were not exceeded and balances remained. As projects are completed, these balances will be utilized. Listed below is the report on the Capital related budgets and the status of projects. Highway Engineering/Right-of-Way State Route 74 - Completion of Segment 11 work was delayed due to resolution of environmental and permitting issues. Right of way acquisition and utility relocation remains to be completed. State Route 79 - Awaiting final comments from Caltrans in order to proceed with construction of right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road. State Route 91 - HOV project from Mary Street to 7th St. - Completion of value engineering analysis and acceptance of alternatives from the City of Riverside. State Route 111 - Design activities for the Palm Desert projects were delayed due to drainage redesign requirements and completion of permit processing. Highway Construction State Route 60 - Scope increase and additional right of way requirements delayed construction start now forecasted for August 18, 2003. State Route 74 - Finalizing of environmental issues and permitting delayed the start of construction work on Segment 1. Start of Segment 11 is now forecasted for February 2004. State Route 79 - Right turn lanes on Gilman Springs Road awaiting completion of design. State Route 1 1 1 - Design changes and permitting processing delayed start of construction for the Palm Desert projects now forecast for September 1, 2003. Agenda Item 6D 9 Rail Engineering/Right of Way North Main Corona Station Parking Structure — Delay in pre -award audit qualification of design consultant. La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Phase 11 — Property acquisition was recently finalized to allow construction to move forward. Rail Construction La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Phase II — Construction is forecasted for August 2003. Pedley Station Platform Expansion has started construction. Installation of CCTV is delayed until components of the platform expansion are installed scheduled for July 2003. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statement for Period Ending June 30, 2003 Agenda Item 6D 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 4th QUARTER FOR PERIOD ENDING 6/30/2003 DESCRIPTION Revenues Sales tax Federal, state & local government Other revenues Interest Total revenues Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services Office lease & utilities General administrative expenses Total administration Programs/projects Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services General projects Highway engineering Highway construction Highway ROW Rail engineering Rail construction Rail ROW Local street & roads Regional arterial Special studies FSP towing Commuter assistance Property management Motorist assistance Rail operations & maintenance STA distributions Specialized transit Planning & programming Total programs/projects Intergovern distribution Capital outlay Debt service Principal Interest Total debt service Total expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Payment to escrow agent Cost of issuance Total financing sources/uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses Fund balance July 1, 2002 Fund balance June 30, 2003 Wusers/preprinl/mdquarterlies/masler quarterly BUDGET ACTUAL REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT UTILIZATION $ 101,048,500 $ 107,583,028 $ 6,534,528 106% 31,232,000 25,277,672 (5,954,328) 81% 6,554,900 7,039,450 484,550 107% 3,965,000 5,095,145 1,130,145 129% 142,800,400 144,995,295 2,194,895 102% 1,223,000 1,174,827 48,173 96% 154,000 148,017 5,983 96% 1,565,851 1,551,725 14,126 99% 333,000 332,466 534 100% 962,300 858,723 103.577 89% 4,238,151 4,065,758 172,393 96% 1,349,700 1,236,181 113,519 92% 804,500 764,821 39,679 95% 1,496,100 754,986 741,114 50% 2,280,100 2,096,063 184,037 92% 4,403,515 2,599,037 1,804,478 59% 15,121,000 10,064,620 5,056,380 67% 15,560,000 15,132,552 427,448 97% 2,129,798 753,757 1,376,041 35% 16,827,200 14,995,720 1,831,480 89% 7,953,000 7,700,844 252,156 97% 39,388,944 39,388,944 100% 7,957,900 8,445,374 (487,474) 106% 2,771,000 1,989,866 781,134 72% 1,113,000 1,014,938 98,062 91% 2,061,000 1,774,079 286,921 86% 83,200 60,025 23,175 72% 786,200 675,019 111,181 86% 4,310,500 3,909,255 401,245 91% 6,155,000 5,808,846 346,154 94% 4,270,500 3,952,160 318,340 93% 65,100 44,072 21,028 68% 136,887,257 123,161,159 13,726,099 90% 683,000 667,234 15,766 98% 400,000 315,241 84.759 79% 25,180,105 25,179,418 687 100% 10,370,895 10,375,867 (4,972) 100% 35,551,000 35,555,285 (4,285) 100% 177,759,408 163,764,677 13,994,731 92% 55,454,600 76,849,456 (21,394,856) 139% 55,454,600 76,849,456 (21,394,856) 139% 0% 0% 0% 0% (34,959,008) (18,769,383) (53,728.391) 54% 108,238,377 164,666,412 56,428,035 152% $ 73,279,369 $ 145,897,030 $ 72,617,661 199% 11 AGENDA ITEM 6E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. Attachment: Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2003 Agenda Item 6E 12 Investor . Jrtfolio Report Period Ending: June 30, 2003 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYS/S&P/FITCH VALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) City National Bank $ 772,947 A3/BBB+ Cash with County Treasurer 58,452,219 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAAV1+ Local Agency Investment Fund 15,320,906 AAA/AAA Agency/Treasury Securities: FHLBCB 215,000 AAA/AAA 215,000 12/23/02 12/23/05 3.00% 215,000 217,017 2,017 Money Market Mutual Funds-CNI Charter FDS 326,923 AAA/AAA 326,923 06/03/03 06/03/03 1.19 % 326,923 326,923 Fed Home Ln Bank Cons Bonds 3,540,000 AAA/AAA 3,543,328 04/17/03 04/17/06 2.80 % 3,540,000 3,543,328 3,328 FFCB 2,000,000 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 05/12/03 05/12/06 2,58 % 2,000,000 2,000,000 Fed Home Ln Bank Global Notes 3,916,643 AAA/AAA 3,845,000 09/06/01 09/15/03 4,16% 3,916,643 3,877,442 (39,201) Fed Home Ln Bank Discount Notes 1.961.200 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 06/14/99 07/15/03 6.29% 1.961,200 2,003,750 42.550 Sub -Total 86,505,838 $ 11,930,251 $ 11,959,766 $ 11,965,132 $ 8,694 FUND HELD IN TRUST Cash with County: Local Transportation Fund Sub -Total INVESTMENT WITH CITIES City ofLake Elsinore Sub -Total 24,720,835 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAAV1+ 24,720,835 Principal 572.752 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE 572,752 Maturity Date 11/01/04 Milestone Funds 9,747,684 AAA/AAA First American Treasury 17,190,607 AAA/AAA U.S. Treasury Notes 15,926,000 AAA/AAA First American Treasury - Held in Trust 2.000.735 AAA/AAA Sub -Total 44,865,026 AAA/AAA TOTAL $ 156,664,451 6.0% SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks $ 772,947 Cash with County 83,173,054 LAIF 15,320,906 Mutual Funds: First American Treasury - Trust 2,000,735 CNI Charter FDS 326,923 Milestone 9,747,684 Sub -Total Mutual Funds 12,075,342 Federal Agency Not es 11,632,843 U .S. Treasury Notes 33,116,607 Investment Agreements 572,752 TOTAL $ 156,664,451 13 Po.- F. IIo Is-svesLmartt: Type Fad era l Age, noy Notes LAIF % Statement of Compliance Mutual Funds 8% nvaetmartt pranrn.ntm 21aP C unt3. I 5446 All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ending June 30, 2003 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on April 9, 2003. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. Signed by Chief Financial Officer 14 County of Riverside Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund Compliance Analysis and Investment Report June 2003 Paul McDonnell - Treasurer/Tax Collector Don Kent - Assistant Treasurer Jon Christensen - Chief Deputy Treasurer It seems is buying wrote As the and signals Below At (down this themselves. Treasurer's Commentary "Buying Time" by the last 25 basis point cut in the Fed funds rate by the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (F.O.M.C) on June 25th, the time with hopes that time may work out the downturn in our fragile economy. This is a unique time in our economic history. As we last month, deflation is the new "boogeyman" which has the Fed worried, as it is now in uncharted waters. for now, it seems like the economy is stabilizing as seen by some of the economic indicators, and the stock market is holding its own for first time in many months. To quote Mr. Greenspan, "recent signs point to a firming in spending, markedly improved financial conditions labor and product markets that are stabilizing." He also said "the economy nonetheless has yet to exhibit sustainable growth." More so for now we just have to hope for the best, but plan for the worst. are reported economic indicators of importance: Reported in June Fed mixed At Durable Goods Orders — for June 25th -0.3% actual vs. 1.0% survey Factory Orders — for June 2th -2.9% actual vs. -1.6% survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — for June 26th 1st Quarter -actual 1.4% actual vs. 1.9% survey Unemployment Rate— for June 6th 6.1% actual vs. 6.1% survey Consumer Confidence- Index— for June 24th 83.5% actual vs. 82.0% survey FOMC Rate decision — for June 25 th Lowered 25 (B.P.S.) to 1.00%. Next decision due 08/12 1.00% actual vs. 1.00% survey month's end, the Fed Funds rate was lowered from 1.25% to 1.00%, with a balanced/deflation bias. The 2 -year T -Note was yielding 1.30% 2 bps.) while the 30 -year T -Bond was yielding 4.55% (up 20 bps.). For June, the Pool had an increase of 1 bp. in average monthly yield. juncture, we will continue to hold the line and maintain a short-term outlook until attractive opportunities to lock in longer -term rates present 62, '%1zc � Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector Month -End Book Value Month -End Market Value* Paper Gain or (Loss) Percent of Paper Gain or Loss Yield Based Upon Book Value Weighted Average Maturity (Years) Effective Duration • Market value does not include accrued interest. JUNE $ 2,557,737,123 $ $ 2,559,036,856 $ $ 1,299,733 $ 0.05% 1.52% 0.68 0.23 PORTFOLIO STATISTICS MAY APRIL MARCH FEBRUARY JANUARY 2,680,289,191 2,681,921,043 1,631,852 0.06% 1.51% 0.62 0.29 $ 3,038,266,101 $ 2,619,050,380 $ 3,039,514,439 $ 2,620,562,243 $ 1,248,337 $ 1,511,863 0.04% 0.06% 1.56% 1.66% 0.55 0.49 0.24 0.18 $ 2,528,005,038 $ 2,514,092,372 $ 2,528,689 0.10% 1.74% 0.45 0.21 $ 2,511,563,683 $ 2,514,092,372 $ 2,528,689 0.10% 1.74% 0.47 0.18 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: AAA/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAAN1+ BY FITCH IBCA County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 4th Floor - Capital Markets Riverside, CA 92502-2205 www.countytreasurer.org (909) 955 - 3967 15 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Characteristics June 2003 Maturity Market Value 30 Days or Less 1,161,640,252.78 30 - 90 Days 651,306,563.73 90 Days - 1 Year 109,694,556.94 1 - 2 Y ears 91,400,511'2.25 2 - 3 Years 524,025,779.80 Over 3 Years 20,969,200.00 Total: $2,559,036,855.50 Quality Federal Agency AAA A-1 and/or P-1 N/R Total: Market Value 1,091,708,859.10 250,000,000.00 1,204,917,996.40 ° 12,410,000.00 2,559,036,855.50 Sector Market Value Federal Agency 1,091,708,859.10 Cash Equiv. & MMF^'s Commercial Paper Negotiable CD's Certificates of Deposit Local Agency Obligations Total: 865,000,000.00 539,917,996.40 50,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 2.410.000.00 2,559,036,855.50 • Includes Repos •• Collateralized Time Deposits & Local Agency Obligations Maturity 40.00% 1i3Oa9L.a 30.00% Accra /5.06% 10.0014 9A0% 0.007. % 4.29% 0.82% ;so orilorLes. ,30-90Days 90 Days - 1 Year 1-2Years Camrrercl�! • Pdl�lop/r� 8.54% Cash Equru% / & MMF's 32.20% Negoliablo CD's 1 9E1% CerCifica1e, at Deposit 0.20% Local Agency O oIi jui1ot s 0-09"% -2 =3 Years Oeer3Ycars Federal -Agency 56:64' U.S. Treasury Yield Curve 1 5.30% 4.80% -- 4.30% = --- 3.80% 3.30% 2.80% - - 2.30% - - 1.80% - 1.30% -- - - - - IY 2Y 3Y 5Y 7Y I0Y 15Y 20Y 30Y 3M 6M 05/31/03 t 06/30/03 Yield Change 0.30% 0.20% - 0.10% . -. 0.00% ., IN - ""� 0% r ■ , -o.l -0.20% -0.30% -0.40% -0.50% --- -0.60% - 3M 6M 1Y 2Y 3Y 5Y 7Y I0Y I5Y 20Y 30Y Yield Curve Data 05/31/03 06/30/03 Change 3 Month 1.10% 0.85% -0.25% 6 Month 1.09% 0.97% -0.12% 1 Year 1.14% 1.04% -0.10% 2 Year 1.33% 1.30% -0.02% 3 Year 1.57% 1.60% 0.03% 5 Year 2.29% 2.41% 0.12% 7 Year 2.80% 2.92% 0.12% 10 Year 3.37% 3.52% 0.14% 15Year 3.97% 4.11% 0.14% 20 Year 4.38% 4.52% 0.14% 30 Year 4.38% 4.56% ' 0.18% 16 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Holdings Report June 30, 2003 Acquisition Current Current Market issuer Coupon Maturi Cost Price Value wi0 Accr Int. Gain/Lass Yld Mat r Eff. Dur. a Ave. Lite' Goo,...rment Agency 313314035 2.000000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3YrNc3Mo 313310035 19,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3133MYZJ9 15,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3.25 YrNc3M 3136F2RC4 14,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc1Yr 313310G27 16,700,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK275YrNc3M 313310035 1,000.000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc3Mo 313310035 17,400,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3133MPAX4 23,000,000:00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133MPAX4 30,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133MPH74 50,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133MVWB5 4,725,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc6Mo1X 3133MYEA1 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc3Mo 3133MYHL4 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc3Mo 3133MXTV1 15,000.000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5YrNc3Mo 3133MXZR3 20,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5TrNc3Mo 3133my6y8 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5YrNc3Mo 3133MYV95 17,625,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3133MYNJ2 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 31339X304 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2 1/2YrNc3M 31339XC93 20,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5 YrNc3Mo 31339X0P2 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2 12YrNc3M 3133MWC33 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc6MSTEP 3133MWXX4 10,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc6MStep 3133MXCU1 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3133MXBT5 25,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3133MXCU1 25,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3133MX0B2 25,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3133MXP60 20,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3133MXR92 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3136F3KU9 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc6Mo 3133MXYY9 18,550,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3133MYER4 20,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 31339X3R3 20,000.000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc1 MO 31339X2L7 17,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 31339- - 20,000,00060 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 313: 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3 25 YrNc3M 3128, 20,000,000.00 FHLB - MORTG. CERT. 313384JM2 40,000000.00 FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT 313384JV2 46,800.000.00 FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT 3136F2606 20,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 2YrNc6Mo 3136F3QS8 25,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 2 YrNc6M 3136F2T81 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 2.5YNc1Yr 3136F3BU9 10,000,000.00 FNMA 2.5YrNc6Mo Step 31359MRY1 20,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2.5YrNc1Yr 3136F2RC4 6,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 3Yr.Nc1Yr 3136F3QN9 10.000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2 5YrNc3Mo 3136F3TF3 14,820,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 3136F3TF3 8,900,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. 313588HX6 30,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 3135B8JK2 24,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313588KR5 35,000.000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313396LA9 50,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 3135888LA1 30,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313588MZ5 50,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313588NP6 50,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 86387SJ03 20,000,000.00 STUDENT LN MKTG ASSOC 2YrNc3Mo Sub -Total 1,091,520,000 00 Cash Equivalent & Money Market Funds 300,000,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY 315,000.000.00 MERRILL LYNCH 250,000,000.00 AIM STIT GOVT AAA/Aaa Sub -Total 865,000,000.00 Collateralized Time Deposits 10,000,000.00 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK Sub -Total 10,000,000.00 2.580 05/12/06 2,000,000.00 100.182 2,003,640,00 3,640.00 2.560 0.12 2.87 2580 05112/06 19,000,000.00 100.182 19,034,580.00 34,580.00 2.580 0.12 2.87 2.500 09/11/06 15,000,000.00 100.296 15,044,400 00 44,400.00 2501 0.20 3.20 3250 11/07/05 14,000,000.00 100.779 14,109,060,00 109,060.00 3.250 0.35 2.36 2.500 02113/06 16,700,000.00 100.178 16,729,726.00 29,726.00 2.501 0.12 2.63 2.580 05/12/06 1,000,000.00 100 182 1,001,820.00 1820.00 2.580 0.12 2.87 2.580 05/12/06 17,400,000.00 100.182 17,431,66800 31,668.00 2.580 0.12 2.87 2.480 07/07/03 23,000,000.00 100.000 23,000,000.00 2.480 0.02 0.02 2.480 07/07/03 30,000,000.00 100-000 30,000,000.00 2.480 002 0.02 2.240 07/15/03 50,000,000.00 100.000 50.000,000 00 - 2,240 0.04 0.04 2.125 02/28/05 4,725,000.00 100.181 4,733.552.25 8,552.25 2.116 0.17 1.67 2.125 05/06/05 9,998,437.50 100.112 10,011,20000 12,762.50 2133 0.10 1.85 2250 0520/05 10,000,000.00 100.173 10,017,300.00 17,300.00 2.250 0.14 1.89 2 550 10/21/05 15,000.000.00 100.087 15,013,050.00 13,050.00 2 550 0.06 2.31 2.440 1021/05 20,000,000.00 100.081 20,016,200.00 16,200.00 2.440 0.06 2.31 2500 11/07/05 10,000,000.00 100.152 10,015,200.00 15,200.00 2500 0.10 2.36 2100 11/28/05 17,622,246.09 100.178 17,656,372.50 34,126.41 2106 0.17 2.42 2350 1128/05 10,000,000.00 100.217 10,021,700.00 21,700.00 2.350 017 2.42 2.125 12/12/05 9,995,000.00 100.227 10,022,700.00 27,700..00 2.146 0.20 2.45 2.000 12/19/05 19,996,875.00 100.218 20,043,600.00 46,725.00 2.006 0.22 2.47 1.820 12/30/05 9,998,437.50 100.142 10,014,200.00 15,762.50 1.826 0.25 2.50 2000 02/28/06 10,000,00000 100.161 10,016,100..00 16,100,00 2.983 0.17 2.67 2.000 03/24/06 10,000,000.00 100.235 10,023,50000 23,500.00 2836 0.23 2.73 2.000 04/03/06 10,000,000.00 100.000 10,000,000.00 2.736 2.69 2.76 2.000 04/03/06 25,000,000.00 100.000 25,000,000.00 2.614 2.69 2.76 2.000 04/03/06 25,000,00000 100.000 25,000,000.00 2.736 2.69 2.76 2.000 04/07/06 25,000,000.00 100.000 25,000,000.00 2.598 2.70 2.77 2.250 04/10/06 19,996,875,00 99.984 19,996,875.00 - 2.975 2.70 2.78 2.500 04/17/06 10,000,000.00 100.068 10,006,800.00 6,800.00 2,990 0 05 280 2.000 04/24/06 10,000,00000 100.312 10,031,200.00 31,200.00 2.980 032 2.82 2.000 04/28/06 18,547,101.56 100.077 18,564,283.50 17,181.94 2.986 0.08 2.83 2.200 05/08/06 20,000,000.00 100.126 20,025,200.00 25,200.00 2.200 0.11 2.86 2365 06/09/06 20,000,000.00 100.000 20,000,000.00 2.365 2.86 2.95 2 375 06/12/06 17,000,000.00 100.276 17,046,920.00 46,920 00 2.375 0.20 2.95 2.110 06/30/06 20,000,000.00 100.215 20,043,000.00 43,000.00 2.110 025 3.00 2.500 09/11/06 5,000,000.00 100.296 5,014,800.00 14,800.00 2.498 0.20 3.20 2.000 12/19/05 19,995,000.00 100.418 20,083,600.00 88,600.00 2.010 0.47 2.47 1.180 07/23/03 39,883,311,11 99.708 39,883,311.11 - 1.183 0.06 0.06 0.870 07/31/03 46,759,284,00 99.913 46,759,284.00 0.871 0.08 0.08 2.000 02/28/05 20,000,000.00 100.148 20,029,600.00 29,600.00 1.992 0.17 1.67 2.000 0520/05 25,000,000.00 100.373 25,093,250.00 93,250.00 2.000 039 1.89 2.375 08/10/05 10,000,000.00 100.786 10,078,600.00 78,600.00 2,375 0.61 2.12 2.000 09/19/05 10,000,000.00 100.221 10,022,100.00 22,100.00 2.247 0.22 2.22 2.110 09130/05 20,000,000.00 100.733 20,146,600.00 146,600.00 2.110 0.74 2.25 3.250 11/07/05 6,000,000,00 100.779 6,046,74000 46,740.00 3.250 0.35 2.36 2.375 11/15/05 10,000,000.00 100.171 10,017,100.00 17,100 00 2.375 0.13 2.38 2.140 1128/05 14,820,000.00 100.184 14,847,268 80 27,268 80 2.140 0.17 2.42 2.140 11/28/05 8,900,000.00 100.184 8,916,376.00 16,37600 2.140 0.17 242 1.180 07/09/03 29,912,48333 99.708 29,912.483.33 - 1.197 0.02 0 02 1.050 07/21/03 23,972,000.00 99.883 23,972,00000 1.051 0.06 0.06 1.200 08/20/03 34,853,000.00 99.580 34,853,000.00 - 1.224 0.14 0.14 1.200 08/29/03 49,776,666.67 99.553 49,776,666.67 - 1224 0.16 0.16 1.190 08/29/03 29,872,075.00 99.574 29,872,075.00 - 1.214 0.17 0.16 0.960 10/15/03 49,852,000.01 99.715 49,857,520.83 5,520.82 0.981 029 029 0,960 10/29/03 49,833,333.33 99.674 49,837,036.11 3,702.78 0.979 0.33 0.33 2.125 04/25/05 20,000,000.00 100.078 20,015,600.00 15,60000 2.125 0.07 1.82 1,090,409,126.10 1,091,708,859 10 1,299,733.00 1.984 0.47 1.52 1.200 07/01/03 300,000,000.00 100.000 300,000.000.00 - 1200 0.00 000 1.200 07/01/03 315,000,000.00 100.000 315,000,000.00 - 1.200 0.00 0.00 1.000 07/31/03 250,000,000.00 100.000 250,000 000.00 - 1.019 0.08 0 08 865,000,000.00 865,000,000.00 1.148 0.03 003 1.850 10/14/03 10,000,000.00 100.000 10,000,000.00 - 1.850 0.29 0.29 10.000,000.00 10,000,000.00 - 1.850 0.29 0.29 17 Page 1 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund - Portfolio Holdings Report June 30, 2003 CUSIP Par($) Issuer Negotiable Certificates of Deposi 50,000,000 00 WELLS FARGO 50,000,000.00 Commercial Paper 95920EU17 50,000,000.00 IBM CORP. A1/P1 9U2b2UU11 61.1,1180,01.10.00 UHS FINANCE A1+/P1 00137FU34 50,000,000.00 AIG FUNDINGA1+/P1 50000BU32 50,000,000.00 KOCH INDUSTRIESA1+/P1 1667X1487 50,000,000.00 CHEVRON TEXACO A1+/P1 30228QUM5 50,000,000.00 EXXON ASSET MGMT A1+/P1 36959JUX9 50,000,000.00 GE CAPITAL CORP A1+/P1 17307KV63 50,000,000.00 CITIGROUP GLOBAL MKTS A1+/P1 1.210 08/06/03 49,892,444 45 99.785 71708FV82 50,000,000.00 PFIZER INC A1+/P1 0.980 08/08/03 49,941,472 22 99.883 92344FVC9 40,500,000.00 VERIZON NEIWK FNDG A1+/P1/F1+ 1.010 08/12/03 40,447,73250 99.871 8923E3W33 50,000,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT A1+/P1 1.000 09103/03 49,905,555.56 99.811 Coupon Matur Acquisition Current Current Market' Cost Price Value w/o Accr Int. Galn/Loss Yld Mat' Eff. Dur. 2 Avr 1.210 07/08/03 50,000,000.00 100.000 50,000,000.00 1.210 0.02 0.02 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 1.110 07/01/03 49,998,458.33 99.997 49,998,458.33 1.310 07/01/03 49,998,180.56 99.996 49,998,180.56 1.090 07/03/03 49,977,291.67 99.955 1.060 07/03/03 49,991,16667 99.982 1.220 07/08/03 49,940,694.44 99.881 1.000 07/21/03 49,966,666.67 99.933 1.200 07/31/03 49,858,333.33 99.717 Sub -Total 540,500,000.00 Average weighted days for commercial paper = 22.56 539,917,996.40 Local Agency Obligations' 1.500,000.00 MARCH JPRA CAN 910,000.00 U.S. DISTRICT COURT- RIVCO CTF 49,977,291.67 49,991,166.67 49,940,694.44 49,966,666.67 49,658,333.33 49,892,444.45 49,941,472.22 40,447,732.50 49,905,555.56 1.110 000 0.00 1.310 0.00 0.00 1.090 0.01 0.01 1.060 0.01 0.01 1.221 0.02 0.02 1.001 0.06 0.06 1.203 0.08 0.08 1.213 0.10 0.10 0.981 0.11 0.11 1.011 0.12 0.12 1.002 0.18 0.18 539,917,996.40 2.050 08/01/05 1,500,000.00 100.000 1,500,000.00 2.050 06/15/20 910,000.00 100.000 910,000.00 1.111 0.06 0.06 2.050 1.69 1.92 2.050 14.41 16.97 Sub -Total 2,410,000.00 2,410,000.00 2,410,000.00 - 2.050 6 62 7.61 Grand -Totals 2,559,430,000.00 2,557,737,122.50 2,559,036,855.50 1,299,733.00 1.478 0.23 0.68 'The market value and yield of short -tens money market securities are based on purchase price. 2 Effective Duration is a sophisticated calculation That measures price sensitivity, while faking into consideration the possibility of securities being called before maturity_ ' Average Life is the number of years unlit principal is retumed at maturity, weighted by market value. a Local Agency Obligations have variable rate coupons, spread to the Pool. 18 Page 2 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND TREASURER'S POLICY le Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund is govemed by both State Law and County Policy. The County Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. As of this month end, the County Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in compliance with this more restrictive policy. Although we have been diligent in the prepartion of this report, we have relied upon numerous pricing and analytical sources including Bloomberg Market Database and Capital Management Sciences, Inc. Bond Lec(istix LLC BO NDLOGISTIXI>_c INSIGHT INNOVATION INTEGRATION. 213.612.2200 SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS I California Government Code County Investment Policy 1 Actual Cal. Govt. Investment Category Maximum Authorized % Quality Maximum Authorized % Qt ali Riverside Code Maturi Limit S&PfMoody's Maturi Limit S&P/(utoodvsIFilch Portfolio % S01(a) LOCAL AGY BONDS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 15% / $150mm A/A2IA 0_000% 1010 U. S. TREASURY 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 5 YEARS 100% NIA 0.00% 53801(d) CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT 5 YEARS NO LIMIT _ 3 YEARS 2.5% Investment Grade 0.09% 53601(e) FEDERAL AGENCIES 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 5 YEARS 100% N/A 42.66% 53601(f) BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS 40%' 150 DAYS 30% A11P1IF1 0.00% 53601(9) COMM. PAPER 270 DAYS 40% Al/P1 270 DAYS 40% A1/P1/F1 21.10% 53601 h CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS 5 YEARS 30% 1 YEAR 25% max A1/P1/F1 1.95% 53601(i) REPOS 1 YEAR NO LIMIT 45 DAYS 40%/25% term max Ai/P1/F1 24.03% 53601(i) REVERSE REPOS 92 DAYS 20% 60 DAYS 10% max N/A 0.00% 53601(j) MED. TERM NOTES 5 YEARS 30% A 2 YEARS 20% max AA/Aa2/AA 0.00% 53601Q MUTUAL. FUNDS 90 DAYS 2 20% AAA/Aaa 3 IMMEDIATE 20% AAA by 2 of 3 Rating Agencies 9.77% 53601(m) SECURED DEPOSITS (SANK DEPOSITS) 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 1 YEAR 2% max 0.39% 53601(n) MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH SECURITY 5 YEARS 1 20% AA -SECURITY A - ISSUER N/A N/A 0.00% 16429 (1,2,3) LOCAL AGENCY' INVESTMENT FUNDS N/A NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 0% max 0.00% 1 No more than 30 A of this category may be invested with any one commercial bank 100.00% 2 Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days. ' Or must have an Investment Advisor wish not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500.000.000. 19 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 2003 PROJECTION OF FUTURE CASH FLOW The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. The Treasurer states that based upon projected cash receipts and maturing investments there are sufficient funds to meet future cash flow disbursement requirements over the next 12 months. MONTH MONTHLY MONTHLY REQUIRED ACTUAL INV. AVAIL. TO RECEIPTS DISBMNT"S DIFFERENCE MAT. INVEST BALANCE MATURITIES INVEST>1 YR. 07/2003 207.6 07/2003 426.3 442.1 -15.8 0.0 191.8 08/2003 408.4 511.3 -102.9 0.0 88.9 09/2003 353 R 499.0 -145.2 56.3 0.0 10/2003 472.7 579.9 -107.2 107.2 0.0 11/2003 450.0 560.9 -110.9 110.9 0.0 12/2003 994.4 601.0 393.4 0.0 393.4 01/2004 453.3 794.5 -341.2 0.0 52.2 02/2004 525.4 936.7 -411.3 359.1 0.0 03/2004 482.9 666.3 -183.4 183.4 0.0 04/2004 858.2 729.1 129.1 0.0 129.1 05/2004 520.4 699.9 -179.5 50.4 0.0 06/2004 399.9 876.6 -476.7 476.7 0.0 Totals: 6,345.7 7897.3 -1551.6 1344.00 52.56% 1508.2 254.7 49.9 109.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1922.4 1213.0 75.18% 47.44% 24 Month Gross Yield Trends The yield history represents gross yields; administrative costs have not been deducted. Actual earnings on fund balances will be credited by the Auditor - Controller based upon County Treasurer calculations. Portfolio yield generally lags current trends in short-term interest rates. Yields fluctuate with changing markets and past performance is not an indication of future results. Gross Yield Trends 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 - - ---- --- - ---- --- 1.50 1.00 I I f I I I I I I I I i 1 I l o^ p^ d` o'` o'` d` d` o1, o1, o1, � i°1, o1, 61, o1, o1, o1, c:1, o1, 0`5 6.5 0 6) 0 o`5 �sC PJ0 eeQ O°� #o4 peo Ian e� �a� p5 �Z` J ?>C3 r��Q OC' \4° 'C-Cr lac Leo 4b V9 4•'Z''\ 4•aZ c t PORTFOLIO YIELD f ALL TAXABLE AVERAGE) 24 Month Yield Spread (Pool Yield vs. All Taxable Average) o.so 040+--- 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 I - -0.10 -0.20 -0.30 - - -I Average Spread = 0.17% - -0.40 -0.50 --- - o'` d` d` 0 o'` 0 .0 o1, o1, oti o9' ®1, o1, o1, o1, o1, o1, 01' p'S o`5 o's o`5 0`5 0^a ‘,--•P 5� O°'' \o1 pew '''( 0 \V`). Puy" ,�� is)' sz 6' GP 06' Oa' lac <C°mar P9r 46\ The Money Fund ReporF""/ All Taxable Average is compiled and reported by iMoneyNet, Inc. (formerly IBC Financial Data, Inc.) iMoneyNet, Inc. is a leading pi of independent analyses and information to the financial services industry, with a particular area of focus in money market mutual funds. The All -Taxable Index tracks the yield of over 500 taxable money market funds across several categories, i.e. Treasury, Government, and Prime, and reports the average yield of those funds on a monthly basis. For more information on the iMoneyNet, Inc. Index see www.ibcdata.com/index.html 20 I nvestment Portfolio Information For RIVE RSIDE COUNTY T RANSPO RTATION COIVIM . Portfolio # 74760100 CONTE NTS 1. Account Summary 2. Detail of Securities Held 3. Fair Market Values & Analytics 4. Security Transactions & Interest 5. Cash Transactions 6. Current Month Gains & Losses 7. Cash/MoneyFund Balances For The Month Endi ng June 30, 2003 21 ©EliVER JUL 07 2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORT ATION CO MM. IV AN M. CHA ND, C HIEF FINANCI AL OFFICER 4080 LEMON STREET 3R D FLOOR RIVERSIDE CA 92502 PFM * One Keystone Plaza * North Front & Market Streets, Su ite 300 * Harrisburg, PA 17101-2044 * (717)232-2723 For more information, please contact your client manager:NAN CY JON ES (415)982-5544 JONESN @publicfin.com Account Summary: (Excluding Cash/MoneyFund) 74760100 RIV ERSID E COUNTY TRANSPORT ATION C OMM. MONTH ENDED: J une 30, 20C SECURITY TYPE FED AG Y BON D/N OTE TO TAL SECURITIES MARKET % OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATIO PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKET VALUE PORTFOLIO COST MARKET TO WORS 5,845 ,000.00 5,852 ,096.89 5,881,192.19 100.00 4.87 1.11 0.15 5,845,000.00 5,852,096 .89 5,881,192.19 100.00 4.87% 1.11% 0 .15 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 5,845,000.00 5,852,096.89 5,881,192.19 100.00 % A CCRUED INTEREST 111,049.90 111,049.90 TOTAL PORTFOLIO 5,845,000.00 5,963,146 .79 5,992,242.09 22 D etail of Securities Held: (Excluding dash/MoneyFund) 74760100 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM. MONTH E NDED: June 30, 200 SECURITY TYPE DESCRIPTION S &P MATURITY P URC HASE ORI GIN AL YTM ACC RUED AMORTIZE D MARKET CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE DATE COST AT C OST I NTEREST COST VALUE FED AGY BOND/NOTE • FH LMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES FHLB GLOBAL NOTES TOTAL SECURITIES 3134 A2KZ0 AAA 2,000,000 5.750 07/15/03 06/14/99 1,961,200 .00 6.29 53,027.78 1,999,585.76 2,003,750.0 3133M5QB9 AAA 3,845,000 5.125 09/15/03 09/06/01 3,916,643.15 4.16 58,022.12 3,852,507.13 3,877,442.1 5,845,000 5,877,843 .15 4.87 111,049 .90 5,852,096 .89 5,881,192.1 $5,845,000 $5,877,843.15 4.87% $111,049.90 $5,852,096.89 $5,881,192.1 23 Fair Market Values & Analytics: 74760100 RI VERSIDE COUNTY TRANS PORTATION COMM. MO NT H ENDED: J une 30, 200 SECURITY TY PE PAR DESCRIPTION MATU RITY FI RST CALL M ARKET M ARKET UNRE AL G/( L) U NR EAL G/(L) DU RATION YTM CUSIP COUP ON DATE D ATE PRICE VALUE ON BOO K ON COST TO WORST AT MK') FED AGY BON D/NOTE ' 2,000,000 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 3134 A2 KZ0 5.750 07/15/03 3,845,000 FHLB GLOBAL NOTES 3133M5QB9 5.125 09/15/03 SUBTOTALS ACCRUED IN TEREST ON INVESTMENTS TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INV ESTMENTS 100.188 100.844 2,003,750 .00 3,877,442 .19 4,160.24 24,935.06 42,550 .00 (39,200.96) 0,04 1.22 0 .21 1.05 $5.,881,192.19 $29,095.30 $3,349.04 0.15 1.11 111.049 .90 $5,992,242.09 24 AGENDA ITEM 6F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer FROM: THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director Single Signature Authority Report SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending April, May, and June 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all contracts that have been executed through the months of April, May, and June 2003, under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $283,612. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of June 30, 2003 Agenda Item 6F 25 SINGLE SIGN ATURE AUTHORITY AS OF JUNE 30, 2003 CONSULTANT ORIGINAL RE MAINING DESCRIPTION CONTRACT EXPENDED CONTRACT OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2002 $ 500,000.00 Volt Edge Repairs, replacements and 16,145.00 16,142.00 3.00 Maintenance at Downtown Station Inland Mailing Services Commuter Assistance Ride Guides 15,000 .00 3,080.35 11,919 .65 PSI Inc. Duplicates of Videos Footag e 25,000.00 1,335.54 23,664 .46 pursuant to May 2002 Agreement Geo rge R. Fetty & Associates C onsultant between UP & RCTC for 15,000.00 11,250.00 3,750.00 pr oj ect s impacting UP R OW and Alameda Corridor East grade separation projects. Gladstein & A ssociates, LLC. FY02103 Clean Fuel s implemention 25,000.00 24,712.12 287.88 consulting services. Ro y E. Glauthier TSI Management Audit 12,600 .00 12,600.00 0.00 Value Management Strategies, Inc. SR -60 Moreno Valley HOV Project 21,570 .00 0.00 21,570 .00 Economics & Politics, Inc. Report economic development in Riv Co 33,500.00 10,000.00 23,500.00 and the construction pri orities Elrod Fence Company 40' X 6' Wro ugh Iron fence acr oss Metrolink between Univ ersity and 14th Str eet 730.00 730.00 0 .00 Demolition of Structures adjacent to RT74 44,516.00 between Wasson Canyo n Road and 7th Street Furnish and install concrete wheelstops a Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Modify and install w rought iron fence at Dow ntown Riverside/LaSierra Metrolink Station 216,388.00 79,850.01 136,537.99 AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH June 30, 2003 Donna Polmounter Michele Cisneros Prepared by Reviewed by $ 283,612.00 No a iShaded area re_ptesents.new coriti'acts4ar April, M ay arid" dig; - st f:\users\preprint\dp\sinsig03 26 79,850.01 $ 203,761.99 AGENDA ITEM 6G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION 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: Adoption of Resolution No. 04-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Making Responsible Agency Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), Approving the Western Riverside County MSHCP/NCCP, and Implementing Agreement and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Making Responsible Agency Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), Approving the Western Riverside County MSHCP/NCCP, and Implementing Agreement and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan is one component of the Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP"). Through the RCIP, a broad array of community members, landowners and other stakeholders have had an opportunity to help establish the County's model for streamlining the environmental process while providing for the long-term development and economic growth of the County. The MSHCP covers 146 species and conserves over 500,000 acres by linking approximately 347,000 acres of existing reserve lands with an additional 153,000 acres that the County will purchase from willing private landowners. The 500,000 acre Conservation Area created by the MSHCP will coordinate core habitats, habitat linkages, and wildlife corridors outside of existing reserve areas with existing private and public reserve lands into a single comprehensive plan that can Agenda Item 6G 27 accommodate the needs of species and habitat in the present and future. By creating this comprehensive and linked conservation area, the MSHCP will protect biological resources, vegetation communities and natural areas while providing Take Authorization for public and private projects. The intent of the MSHCP is for the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("Wildlife Agencies") to grant "Take Authorization" for urban and rural development activities that may incidentally "take" or "harm" species or habitats outside of the conservation area. Take Authorization is currently needed to comply with the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") which prohibits the "taking" of endangered species. Taking is defined as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" listed species. "Harm" includes destruction of a listed species' habitat. The Wildlife Agencies have authority to regulate this "take." Take Authorization is essential for infrastructure projects, such as those undertaken by RCTC, because of the potential impacts to endangered species from such projects. As a Permittee under the MSHCP, RCTC will receive Take Authorization for the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process ("CETAP") and other RCTC projects, including Cajalco road improvements. This streamlined permitting process will reduce uncertainty about the future and eliminate the duplication of effort that often occurs when projects are reviewed and permitted piecemeal by the Wildlife Agencies. In the absence of the MSHCP, each individual RCTC project would be required to comply with the mandates of the State and Federal ESAs. In the past, this process has taken years to complete for RCTC projects and required the acquisition of offsite property, often at a ratio of 2:1 or higher. Moreover, RCTC will receive Take Authorization from the Wildlife Agencies directly for all of its projects. This means that for all RCTC projects, provided the projects are in compliance with the Plan, RCTC does not need to seek permits from the Wildlife Agencies. Finally, the Plan requirements will serve as full CEQA mitigation for impacts to covered species and their habitat for future RCTC projects. Accordingly, the MSHCP's streamlined process will also relieve RCTC's existing regulatory burdens. RCTC's obligations under the Plan for RCTC projects are primarily as follows: • Contribute Measure "A" funds for land acquisition; • Compliance with certain species survey requirements in limited, designated areas; and, • Compliance with certain policies when planning and constructing RCTC facilities. Agenda Item 6G 28 To implement the MSHCP and to receive Take Authorization, RCTC needs to adopt Resolution No. 04-003, which approves the Western Riverside County MSHCP and authorizes execution of the Implementing Agreement. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 04-003 2) Exhibit A, Riverside County's Resolution No. 2003-299 Agenda Item 6G 29 RESOLUTION NO. 04-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, APPROVING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (the "MSHCP" or "Project") is a multi -jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation of both sensitive species and their associated habitats to address biological and ecological diversity and conservation needs in Western Riverside County, setting aside significant areas of undisturbed land for the conservation of sensitive habitat while preserving open space and recreational opportunities; and WHEREAS, the MSHCP boundaries ("MSHCP Plan Area") encompass approximately 1,966 square miles, consisting of approximately 1.26 million acres and include approximately 843,500 acres of unincorporated Western Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains and extending to the Orange County line, as well as approximately 372,700 acres within the jurisdictional areas of 14 incorporated cities; and WHEREAS, the MSHCP establishes a framework for compliance with State and Federal endangered species regulations while accommodating future growth in Western Riverside County, including issuance of "Take" permits for certain species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2800, et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code; and WHEREAS, the County of Riverside ("County"), is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the County determined that a joint Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement ("EIR/EIS") should be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the National Environmental Quality Act ("NEPA") in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project; and 30 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on June 17, 2003 reviewed and considered the Initial Study, Draft EIR/EIS, Final EIR/EIS and other related documents in the record before it and by Resolution No. 2003-299, certified the Final EIR/EIS and adopted environmental findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") is a permittee under the MSHCP and will execute the Implementing Agreement; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15096, subdivision (h) and CEQA, the Commission is therefore a responsible agency for the Project and must make certain findings prior to the approval of the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Commission, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on September 3, 2003 reviewed and considered the Final EIR/EIS and other related documents in the record before it; and WHEREAS, all the procedures of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Commission's Local CEQA Guidelines have been met, and the Final EIR/EIS, prepared in connection with the Project, is sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the above -referenced Act, Guidelines and Rules; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the Commission has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Commission pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information in the administrative record before it, including the Draft EIR/EIS, Final EIR/EIS and other documentation relating to the Project, and all oral and written evidence presented to it; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, in regular session assembled on September 3, 2003, that: A. The Final EIR/EIS prepared for the MSHCP is hereby received by the Commission. 31 B. The Commission hereby finds and determines that the Final EIR/EIS has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and, and as the decision -making body for the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR/EIS and related documents in the record and all of the environmental effects of the MSHCP. C. The Commission concurs with the environmental findings in County Resolution No. 2003-299 and adopts these findings, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The Commission also finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effects that the MSHCP would have on the environment. D. The Commission concurs with the statement of overriding considerations in County Resolution No. 2003-299 and adopts the statement and finding that the benefits of the MSHCP outweigh the adverse environmental impacts not reduced to below a level of significance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission that it hereby approves the MSHCP and authorizes the Chair of the Commission to enter into the Implementing Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Directors that staff shall file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside within five (5) working days of final Project approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this third day of September, 2003. Ron Roberts, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission 32 EXHIBIT A 1 Connty of Riverside 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2003-299 4 5 6 7 8 WHEREAS, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (the 9 "MSHCP" or "Project") is a multi -Jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the 10 conservation of both sensitive species and their associated habitats to address biological and 11 ecological diversity and conservation needs in Western Riverside County, setting aside significant 12 areas of undisturbed land for the conservation of sensitive habitat while preserving open space and 13 recreational opportunities, and 14 15 16 17 18 CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL LMPACT ' REPORT FOR THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND APPROVING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the MSHCP boundaries ("MSHCP Plan Area") encompass approximately 1,966 square miles, consisting of approximately 1 26 million acres and include approximately 843,500 acres of unincorporated Western Riverside County land west ofthe crest ofthe San Jacinto Mountains and extending to the Orange County line, as well as approximately 372,700 acres within 19 the jurisdictional areas of the following 14 incorporated cities Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, 20 Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, 21 San Jacinto, and Temecula (collectively, "Cities"), and \ 22 An WHEREAS, the MSHCP establishes a framework for compliance with State and Federal 4 I1 endangered species regulations while accommodating future growth in Western Riverside County, including issuance of "Take" permits for certain species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2800, et seq of the California Fish and Game Code, 7 and 28 WHEREAS, the County of Riverside ("County"), is the lead agency pursuant to the RVPU2\MKS \G52370 1 33 (i l03 15, Board of Supervisors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l 12 13 14 California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res Code, § 21000 et seq ), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq) and the County of Riverside's Local Rules fo1 implementing CEQA, and WHEREAS, the County determined that a joint Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement ("EIR/EIS") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA and the National Environmental Quality Act ("NEPA") in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project, and WHEREAS, the County published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a draft UR/EIS on September 7, 2001, in The Press Enterprise and La Prensa The NOP was also distnbuted by the County and mailed to 149 recipients and was circulated for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375, and 15 WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the County solicited 16 comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of the 17 environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility, as well 18 as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the 19 responsible agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS, and 20 21 WHEREAS, approximately 29 written comments were received by the County in response 22 to the NOP, which assisted the County in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the 23 Draft EIR/EIS, and 24 25 WHEREAS, the Draft EIR/EIS was completed and released for public review on or about 26 November 14, 2002, and 27 28 RVPUB\MKS\6523?0 2 34 1 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held public hearings to consider comments on the 2 MSHCP and the Draft EIR/EIS on May 5, 6 and 8, 2003, and 4 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County ofRiverside, at its regularly scheduled 5 public meeting on June 17, 2003 reviewed the Initial Study, Draft EIR/EIS and the Final EIR/EIS 6 and other related documents in the record before it, and 7 8 WHEREAS, as contained herein, the County, as lead agency, has endeavored in good faith 9 to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project, and 10 11 WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the County pursuant to this 12 Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based 13 solely on the information provided in this Resolution, and 14 15 WHEREAS, no comments made in the public heanngs conducted by the County or any 16 additional information subrrutted have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation 17 or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088 5, and 18 19 WHEREAS, all the procedures of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Riverside 20 County Rules to Implement the Act have been met, and the Final EIR/EIS, prepared in connection 21 with the Project, is sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant effects of the Project on 22 the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effects have been 23 evaluated in accordance with the above -referenced Act, Guidelines and Rules, now, therefore, 24 25 BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the Board of 26 Supervisors of the County of Riverside, in regular session assembled on June 17, 2003, that 27 28 RVPUB\M'<5\652370 3 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A Certain plant and animal species and habitat exist, or may exist, within Western Riverside County, which are 1) state or federally listed as threatened or endangereu, 2) proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or 3) identified as a Dalifornia Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") Species of Special Concern, a California Fully Protected Species, a California Specially Protected Species, a sensitive plant species as determined by the California Native Plant Society, or other unlisted wildlife considered sensitive within the MSHCP Plan Area 9 B Future growth and land development within the MSHCP Plan Area, including both 10 public and private projects, may result in the "taking" of 146 species ("Covered 11 Species"), thus requiring Take Authorization prior to the carrying out of otherwise 12 lawful activities 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C The MSHCP establishes the conditions under which the County and Citir ("Permrttees") will receive certain long-term Take Authorizations and other assurances that will allow the taking of Covered Species incidental to lawful uses authorized by the Permrttees, and D The MSHCP provides for the assembly and management of a reserve for the conservation of natural habitat and their constituent wildlife populations, and establishes an overall conservation strategy for Western Riverside County that will guarantee the protection ofthe Covered Species The conservation strategy includes the conservation ofthe Covered Species, existing habitat, the restoration ofdegraded habitat, managing a reserve system, and conducting biological monitoring in perpetuity E The MSHCP provides for the creation of a reserve that conserves and manag approximately 500,000 acres of habitat comprised of 347,000 acres of existing RVPUB\MK5\652'70 4 36 1 reserves and 153,000 additional acres ("MSHCP Conservation Area") The 153,000 2 acres consist of 97,000 acres conserved as the local mitigation component and 6,000 3 acres conserved as mitigation for State Permittee projects Of the 97,000 acres 4 conserved as the local mitigation component, 41,000 acres would be accnied 5 through the implementation of developer incentives and on -site set -asides 6 accomplished through the development review process 7 8 F The MSHCP will serve as an Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") pursuant to 9 Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("FESA"), as 10 well as a Natural Community Conservation Plan ("NCCP") pursuant to the NCCP 11 Act of 2001, as amended The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the 12 Implementing Agreement ("IA") would allow the Wildlife Agencies (United States 13 Fish and Wildlife Service ["USFWS"] and CDFG) to issue Take authorizations for 14 Covered Species in the MSHCP Plan Area to the signatones of the IA 15 16 G The MSHCP will mitigate impacts to biological resources that will result from future 17 development The MSHCP will not directly cause those impacts, but provides Take 18 Authorization for listed species through the Wildlife Agencies and would conserve 19 Covered Species The MSHCP is "self -mitigating," meaning that most Project 20 impacts are reduced to below a level of significance as a result of implementation of 21 MSHCP components Additionally, implementation of the management and 22 monitoring programs outlined in the MSCHP would reduce all the potential 23 impacts/consequences of the MSHCP to a less than significant level 24 25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the Final EIR/EIS and 26 the evidence in the administrative record before it confirmed that implementation of the MSHCP 27 would result in no significant environmental effects related to the following issue areas Aesthetics, 28 Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology RVPUB\PIK.s\652370 5 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and Water Quality, Land use (community division and HCP conflicts only), Noise, Public Service (with the exception of fire protection and parks), Utilities, and Environmental Justice A Aesthetics While the primary goal of the MSHCP is the protection and preservation of natural habitats, the MSHCP would have a secondary benefit of preserving visual resources and scenic vistas (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-5) Implementation of the MSHCP would reserve large areas of open space for habitat, habitat linkages, and hillside areas, enhancing the overall aesthetic value of the region (Ibid) Because the MSHCP does not entail physical development, implementation of the MSHCP would not create additional sources oflight or glare (Ibid) Accordingly, impacts on aesthetics are less than significant B Air Quality The MSHCP Plan Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) Because there is no physical development associated with the MSHCP, its implementation would not result in direct air quality impacts (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-6 ) Development outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area may be higher density development along designated transportation corridors throughout Western Riverside County and may indirectly result in localized air quality impacts through the generation of carbon monoxide "hot spots" in areas of high traffic congestion (Ibid) Accordingly, the MSHCP could have potential indirect air quality impacts However, due to the number of acres involved, the flexible nature of the MSHCP Conservation Area's boundaries, and changing market conditions, it is speculative to predict where future development will occur (Ibid) Future development proposals must undergo environmental review and their potential air quality impacts will be identified, analyzed and mitigated, as appropriate (Ibid) Thus, the impr from the MSHCP to air quality are less than significant R'JPUB\MVS\652370 38 6 1 C Cultural Resources 2 The MSHCP does not propose or authorize any physical development, so its 3 implementation will not result in any direct impacts to cultural resources (EIR/EIS, 4 p 1 5-6) However, the MSHCP has the potential to indirectly impact cultural 5 resources within the MSHCP Plan Area, as high density development that may occur 6 outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area may destroy or disturb cultural resources 7 in these areas (Ibid) Due to the number of acres involved, the flexible nature of the 8 MSHCP Conservation Area's boundaries, and changing market conditions, it is 9 impossible to predict where future development will occur Proposals for future 10 development will be subject to environmental review and potential impacts to 11 cultural resources at future development sites will be determined, analyzed and 12 mitigated during project specific environmental analyses by the County and Cities in 13 Western Riverside County (Ibid ) 14 15 There is also the potential that historic human burials may be present in the MSHCP 16 Plan Area (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-7) Because the MSHCP does not authorize, approve 17 or contemplate any physical development, it will not have any direct impact on 18 historic human remains (Ibid) However, the MSHCP does accommodate projected 19 growth by providing Take Authorization for development within the MSHCP Plan 20 Area Human burial sites within the MSHCP Conservation Area will be avoided, so 21 no indirect impacts on human remains within this area will occur (Ibid) However, 22 the MSHCP has the potential to have significant indirect impacts on human resources 23 within the MSHCP Plan Area outside the MSHCP Conservation Area ifdevelopment 24 shifts to those areas Since the MSHCP Conservation Area's boundaries are not 25 fixed, the MSHCP encompasses thousands of acres, and development patterns and 26 timing are largely dependent on market conditions and other factors, it is impossible 27 to speculate where future development may occur (Ibid) Future development 28 proposals will be subject to environmental review under CEQA and the potential RVPU0\MKS \ 552310 7 39 1 impacts of specific development projects on historic human remains will be identified. 2 analyzed and mitigated when the site -specific projects are proposed (lbw, 3 Accordingly, there are no significant impacts to cultural resources from the MSHCP 4 5 D Geology and Soils 6 Because the adoption of the MSHCP does not include the development of physical 7 structures or facilities, it would not increase the potential for geologic/soil stability 8 hazards (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-7) An indirect effect of the MSHCP could be an 9 increase in development pressure outside the boundaries of the MSHCP 10 Conservation Area, which may result in a change of density, form, and character of 11 development (Ibid) Such increased development pressure could result in increased 12 development on or near properties that exhibit sensitive or unstable geologic 13 conditions, or on soils subject to erosion or otherwise unsuitable for development 14 (Ibid) However, because the boundaries are not fixed, the MSHCP encompasse- 15 thousands of acres, and development patterns and timing are largely dependent on 16 market conditions and other factors, it is impossible to speculate where future 17 development may occur (Ibid) Future development within Western Riverside 18 County will require environmental analyses in compliance with CEQA Potential 19 impacts arising from the unique geologic, seismic, or soil conditions at future 20 development sites would be determined, analyzed, and mitigated during project - 21 specific environmental analyses (Ibid) Accordingly, there are no significant 22 impacts to geology or soils from the MSHCP 23 24 E Hazards and Hazardous Materials 25 The MSHCP does not alter methods utilized to generate, use, store, transport, or 26 dispose of hazardous materials, change the locations of hazardous materials sites, 27 change the locations where hazardous materials are generated, used, stored, 28 disposed, or modify, impair or interfere with the establishment or execution of RVPUB\MKS\6523 0 8 40 1 emergency response/evacuation plans (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-7) While the MSHCP may 2 increase development density outside the MSHCP Conservation Area, the MSHCP 3 does not change the amount of growth that is anticipated to occur in Western 4 Riverside County (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-7) Therefore, the MSHCP would not have 5 significant direct impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials 6 7 The MSHCP has the potential for causing indirect impacts on hazards/hazardous 8 materials (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-8) Since development in the MSHCP Conservation 9 Area will be precluded, the MSHCP could increase the density of development 10 outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, which may increase development 11 pressures in the vicinity of local airports However, it is impossible to speculate 12 where growth will occur and whether it will occur in close proximity to airports 13 located within the MSHCP Plan Area (Ibid ) Potential impacts associated with 14 hazardous materials and other hazards resulting from future development will be 15 determined during project -specific environmental analyses for those individual 16 projects, in compliance with CEQA (Ibid) Accordingly, there are no significant 17 impacts to hazards or hazardous materials from the MSHCP 18 19 F Hydrology and Water Quality 20 The MSHCP does not alter the rate or amount of growth projected for Western 21 Riverside County, nor does it propose or authorize any physical construction 22 (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-8 ) Since there will be no change between conditions as they 23 currently exist and how they will exist under the MSHCP, the MSHCP will not 24 violate any water quality or waste discharge standards, reduce groundwater supplies, 25 alter existing drainage patterns, or cause any other direct impact on hydrology or 26 water quality (Ibid) Rather, the MSHCP will substantially reduce the types of 27 activities that would increase urban runoff or result in erosion or sedimentation 28 Because implementation of the MSHCP would preclude development in the MSHCP RJ2UB\p,y,5\6523'0 41 9 1 Conservation Area, the MSHCP's direct impact on water quality will likely be 2 beneficial (Ibid) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Development outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area could result in adverse water quality impacts (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-8) Land -clearing activities associated with development increase erosion and sedimentation, runoff from developed uses generally increase the amount of debris, dirt, grease, and petroleum products, and pathogens in storm runoff Because the MSHCP does not alter the amount of development, cumulative dischargesto watersheds within Western Riverside County would be the same (Ibid) However, by shifting development patterns, the MSHCP aught cause indirect water quality impacts by changing the location of discharges, which might ultimately affect overall water quality Whether this occurs depends on the location of future development, which would be too speculative to predict at this time (Ibid) In compliance with CEQA, potential hydrology and water qualit- impacts resulting from future development will be analyzed during project -specific environmental analyses for those projects as they arise (Ibid) Accordingly, there are no significant impacts to hydrology and water quality from the MSHCP G Land Use (Community Division, HCP Conflicts only) The MSHCP does not propose or authorize any physical development The MSHCP Conservation Area will be assembled from undeveloped lands (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-9 ) Therefore, implementation of the MSHCP will not directly or indirectly result in the division of an established community (Ibid) The MSHCP will not have any significant direct or indirect impacts on adopted Habitat Conservation Plans ("HCPs") or Natural Community Conservation Plans ("NCCPs") Rather, the MSHCP is specifically designed to augment and complement existing HCPs and NCCPs throughout Western Riverside County (Ibid ) Additionally, the MSHC - will not cause adverse cumulative impacts by conflicting with the provisions of any RVPUB\MKS\652370 10 42 1 adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation 2 plan either within or outside of the MSHCP Plan area Rather, the MSHCP has been 3 written specifically to complement existing HCPs, such as the Stephens ' kangaroo 4 rat long-term HCP (EIR/EIS, p 5 1-7 ) 5 6 H Noise 7 Because implementation of the MSHCP will not result in development, no direct 8 noise impacts will occur (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-9) Indirect noise impacts may occur 9 due to increased development pressure and changes to the density, form, and 10 character of development outside the MSHCP Conservation Area (Ibid) Because 11 less land would have to accommodate more people, the intensification of land use 12 could result in the siting of high -volume noise activities in closer proximity to 13 sensitive receptors However, it is impossible to speculate where future development 14 might occur (Ibid) Potential noise resulting from future development in Western 15 Riverside County will be deterrruned during future project -specific environmental 16 analyses, in compliance with CEQA (Ibid) Accordingly, there are no significant 17 impacts to noise from the MSHCP 18 19 I Public Services (Police, Schools, Libraries, Others) 20 The MSHCP does not authorize or contemplate any construction, nor does it result 21 in the loss of existing facilities Therefore, the MSHCP will not have any significant 22 direct impacts on public services (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-9) Regarding indirect impacts, 23 the MSHCP may accommodate growth in areas outside ofthe MSHCP Conservation 24 Area and growth in these areas will result in an increased demand for police 25 protection, schools, and libraries, and facilities would likely be constructed in 26 accordance with the relevant General Plans for the County and Cities (Ibid) It is 27 impossible to speculate where and when future development might occur, and, as a 28 result, the locations where demand for public services might be increased, and the RVBUB\MKS\552370 11 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 location of future facilities, cannot be determined (Ibid) Potential public services impacts resulting from future development in Western Riverside County will b,, determined during future project -specific environmental analyses, in compliance with CEQA (Ibid) Accordingly, there are no significant impacts to public services from the MSHCP 7 J Utilities 8 The MSHCP does not authorize or contemplate any physical development, so it will 9 not require the use, construction, or expansion of water facilities, wastewater 10 treatment « facilities, f i r �, ea�r;,en� facilities, storm drainage �ac;,i�;es, or landfill capacity Therefore, no direct 11 impact on utilities would result from implementation of the MSHCP (EIR/EIS, p 12 1 5-9) Because the MSHCP could increase pressure to develop areas outside of the 13 MSHCP Conservation Area and may encourage more dense or compact 14 development, implementation of the MSHCP could necessitate the shift of utilit- 15 facilities to areas outside of MSHCP Conservation Area (Ibid ) However, it is 16 impossible to speculate at this time where future development might occur (Ibid ) 17 Potential impacts to utility facilities and service systems resulting from future 18 development will be determined during preparation ofproject-specific environmental 19 analyses, in compliance with CEQA (Ibid) Accordingly, there are no significant 20 impacts to utilities from the MSHCP 21 22 K Environmental Justice 23 Environmental Justice issues were considered in the proposed MSHCP process 24 (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-10) On October 20, 1998, the Riverside County Board of 25 Supervisors reviewed consensus "planning principles" submitted by the coalition of 26 interest groups, and endorsed their use as initial guidelines in the early stages of 27 developing the Riverside County Integrated Plan ("RCIP") (Ib;d) Environment 28 i Justice issues were integrated with principles such as acknowledging the rights of RVPUB\MKS\652370 12 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 private property owners and offering lust compensation according to federal and State laws regarding private property reserved for public purposes (Ibid) Significant impacts will result only if implementation of the MSHCP produced disproportionate significant adverse environmental or human health impacts to low- income or minority population communities (EIR/EIS, p 1 5-1 1 ) Because the MSHCP will not directly result in any physical change to the environment, there could be no disproportionate significant adverse impacts to minority or low-income communities and thus no mitigation is required (Ibid ) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the following environmental impacts associated with the MSHCP are potentially significant unless otherwise indicated, but each of these impacts will be avoided or substantially lessened by the incorporated project features A Biological Resources (Sensitive Vegetation Communities, except Native Grasslands) 1 Impacts The focus of the analysis for the MSHCP is on the conservation requirements of Covered Species, which includes the conservation of suitable habitat vegetation types for each species For purposes of analysis, vegetation types are grouped into four primary commuruties sensitive upland, wetland, forest, and agriculture (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-12) The MSHCP identifies species - specific requirements for the conservation of vegetation communities that will achieve the overall biological goal and species -specific objectives for Covered Species This species -specific approach is more appropriate for determining impacts than targeting an arbitrary percentage for conservation of particular Vegetation Communities The analysis for conservation of each vegetation community identifies representativeness of the vegetation community conserved, configuration ofthe vegetation community conserved, RVPUB\MKS\652370 13 45 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and consideration of those factors with respect to species -specific conservation requirements (Responses G-15, G-16 and G-17 ) For sensitive upland communities within the MSHCP Plan Area, implementation of the MSHCP will authorize Take of 37 percent of chaparral, 48 percent of coastal sage scrub, 66 percent of desert scrub, 72 percent of grassland (including both native and non-native grassland), and 34 percent of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (EIR/EIS, Table 4A) For wetland communities within the MSHCP Plan Area, the MSHCP w�1] authorize Take of 76 percent of meadows and marshes, 15 percent of playas and vernal pools, 15 percent of water, and 26 percent of riparian scrub/woodland/forest For forest communities within the MSHCP Plan Area, the MSHCP will authorize Take of 31 percent of montane coniferous forest, and 32 percent of woodlands and forests (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-12 ) Additionally, the MSHCP will not cause adverse cumulative effects related to the reduction of sensitive vegetation communities within the MSHCP Plan Area, rather, the MSHCP is designed to preserve sufficient acreage of the sensitive vegetation communities present in Western Riverside County (EIR/EIS, p 5 1-7 ) 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts The MSHCP's components will minimize to the extent feasible potential impacts to sensitive vegetation communities (FIR/EIS, p 4 1-13 ) These include assembly of an approximately 500,000 -acre MSHCP Conservation Area encompassing Conserved Habitat (Ibid) Conserved Habitat is land that is permanently protected, in part by legal arrangements that prevent conversion to other uses (Ibid) The acreages of vegetation communities .VPUB\MKS\652370 I4 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RVPU5\MKS\652370 not authorized for Take will be included as Conserved Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area (Ibid ) Since the MSHCP will authorize the Take of 31 percent and 32 percent of montane coniferous forest and woodlands and forests, respectively, the majority of the forest communities will be included as Conserved Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area (Ibid) Thus, the MSHCP will not result in a substantial reduction of these communities, and impacts are considered to be less than significant (Ibid ) For the sensitive upland communities, inclusion of 63 percent of the chaparral within the MSHCP Conservation Area will not result in a substantial reduction of these communities because of the large percentage of this vegetation community that will be included as Conserved Habitat under the MSHCP, the extensive acreage and wide distribution of this vegetation community throughout the MSHCP Plan Area, and the relatively low numbers of listed species within the MSHCP Plan Area preferring this vegetation community (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-14 ) For coastal sage scrub and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub 52 percent and 66 percent of these vegetation communities, respectively, will be included as Conserved Habitat (EM/EIS, p 4 1-14) Impacts to coastal sage scrub and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub due to the patchy distribution of these vegetation communities in the MSHCP Plan Area and the relatively large numbers of sensitive species occurring in these vegetation communities, will be reduced to a less than significant level by features incorporated into the MSHCP, including the configuration of conserved lands, as well as adaptive management and monitoring policies which will ensure that the MSHCP achieves the biological goal for each coastal sage scrub Covered Species 15 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-14, Response G-17) The MSHCP could reduce desert scrub by 66 percent, however, features incorporated into the MSHC_ including the configuration of conserved lands, as well as adaptive management and monitoring, will reduce impacts to desert scrub to a less than significant level (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-14 ) The Project and its associated Take Authorization could result in impacts to 88 percent of the agricultural vegetation community However, agriculture is not a sensitive natural vegetation community Thus, impacts to agriculture are not regarded as biologically significant (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-14) Moreover, flexibility is incorporated in the Criteria Area and the Reserve Assembly process to take advantage of opportunities to provide for additional vegetation community Conservation as the MSHCP is implemented (Ibid ) The MSHCP also requires additional mapping of riparian, nverine, verna, pools, and other potentially jurisdictional wetland areas as part of the CEQA review of applications for Covered Activities within the MSHCP Plan Area (Ibid) This MSHCP policy calls for avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetland habitat throughout the MSHCP Plan Area in accordance with existing regulatory standards that call for conservation and mitigation of 21 wetland functions and values (Ibid) Together, inclusion of substantial 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 acreages of wetland vegetation communities within the MSHCP Conservation Area, and implementation ofthe Ripanan/Riverine/Vernal Pool policy incorporated in the MSHCP, will reduce identified impacts to wetland vegetation communities to a level below significance (Ibid ) Based on features of the MSHCP itself, implementation of the MSHCP not have a substantial adverse impact on any wetland or other sensitive RV?UB\MKS\E523i0 16 48 1 natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or 2 regulations or by the Wildlife Agencies and no mitigation measures are 3 required (Ibid ) 4 5 Since the MSHCP will not cause any adverse cumulative effects related to 6 the reduction of sensitive vegetation communities, no mitigation measures 7 are required (EIR/EIS, p 5 1-7 ) 8 9 B Biological Resources (Listed Covered Species only) 10 1 Impacts 11 The MSHCP provides Take Authorization for Covered Species resulting 12 from development outside of the Criteria Area, as well as those Covered 13 Activities that are consistent with the Criteria and permitted inside the 14 Criteria Area (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-15) In addition, Take Authorization is also 15 provided for certain activities within the Criteria Area and within existing 16 public/quasi-public lands, including maintenance and minor improvements to 17 existing roads, improvements related to planned roads, and limited future 18 facilities, such as electrical, gas, water, sewer, flood control, and State Park 19 facilities The MSHCP includes specific criteria for locating such facilities 20 and provides guidelines for design of the facilities that wi]1 avoid or reduce 21 impacts to Covered Species (Ibid ) 22 23 As a result of issuance of the Permits, the 146 Covered Species identified in 24 the MSHCP could be legally taken by Permittees outside of the MSHCP 25 Conservation Area Nineteen ofthe 83 covered wildlife species and 13 ofthe 26 63 covered plant species are listed under FESA or the California Endangered 27 Species Act ("CESA") (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-15) These 19 wildlife species and 28 13 plant species will be directly affected by the MSHCP because they will no RVDUB\MKS\652370 17 49 1 longer receive protection outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area (Ibid 1 2 The impacts to the 32 Listed Covered Species are quantified based on thL 3 best existing information available for known occurrences and potential 4 suitable habitat for each Listed Covered Species (EIR/EIS, Table 4B) The 5 impacts for each species are as follows 6 7 Vernal pool fairy shrimp—Branchznecta lynchz No known localities will 8 be within the area subject to Take Approximately 4,016 acres (60%) of 9 suitable habitat including playas and vernal pools will be within the area 10 subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-15 ) 11 12 Riverside fairy shrimp—Streptocephalus woottoni Individuals occurring 13 outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be within the area subject to 14 Take Approximately 5,868 acres (33%) of suitable habitat including play? - 15 and vernal pools will be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1- 16 16) 17 18 Quino checkerspot butterfly — Euphydryas editha quino. Approximately 19 41,668 acres (38%) of suitable habitat including chaparral, coastal sage 20 scrub, grasslands, playas and vernal pools, and woodlands and forests will be 21 within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-16 ) 22 23 Delhi Sands flower -loving fly — Rhaphzomidas terminatus abdomznahs. 24 Individuals occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be 25 within the area subject to Take Approximately 452 acres (90%) of suitable 26 habitat including coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and 27 grasslands co-occurring with Delhi soils will be within the area subject 28 Take Approximately 791 acres (82%) of restorable habitat including RVPU6\MKS\652370 50 18 1 agricultural lands occurnng with Delhi soils will be within the area subject to 2 Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-16 ) 3 4 Santa Ana sucker — Catastomus santaanae None of the core population 5 areas, spawning areas, dispersal, or refuge areas will be within the area 6 subject to Take Approximately 540 acres (6%) of suitable habitat that 7 includes water habitat will be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 8 4 1-17 ) 9 10 Arroyo toad — Bufo californicus Individuals occurring outside of the 11 MSHCP Conservation Area will be within the area subject to Take 12 Approximately 296 acres (16%) of suitable breeding habitat including 13 meadows and marshes, riparian scrub, woodland and forest, and Riversidean 14 alluvial fan sage scrub will be within the area subject to Take Approximately 15 2,320 acres (25%) of suitable upland habitat including agricultural lands, 16 chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grasslands, and woodlands and forests will be 17 within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-18 ) 18 19 California red -legged frog — Rana aurora draytonn Approximately 47 20 acres (6%) of suitable habitat including playas and vernal pools ripanan 21 scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and open water will be within the 22 area subject to Take Approximately 9,370 acres (19%) of suitable upland 23 habitat including agricultural lands, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grasslands, 24 and woodlands and forests will be within the area subject to Take (E1R/EIS, 25 p 4 1-18 ) 26 27 mountain yellow -legged frog — Rana mucosa_ Individuals occurring 28 outside the MSHCP Conservation Area will be within the area subject to RVPUB\MYS\552370 19 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Take Approximately 140 acres (29%) of primary habitat including ripanan scrub and woodlands and forests occurring above 1,200 feet in the Sai. Jacinto Mountains will be within the area subject to Take Approximately 11,460 acres (26%) of secondary habitats including montane coniferous forests and woodlands and forests occurring above 1,200 feet in the San Jacinto Mountains will be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1- 18) Southern rubber boa — Charina hottae umbratzca_ Incidental Take of the southern rubber boa is difficult to quantify due to hirated knowledge of the species distribution within the MSHCP Plan Area, and the fact that losses may be masked by fluctuations in abundance and distribution during the life of the permit However, the maximum level of Take of the southern rubber boa can be anticipated by the loss of habitat for this species Approximately" 155 acres (5%) of primary habitat, including chaparral, grassland, montane coniferous forest, riparian scrub, woodland and forest, and non -riparian woodland and forest, will be within the area subject to Take (EIRIEIS, p 4 1-18 ) Swainson's hawk — Buteo swaznsonz Localities at Winchester will be within the area subject to Take Approximately 257,220 acres (57%) of suitable habitat including agriculture field crop lands, grassland, desert scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, coastal sage scrub, and woodland and forest within the Riverside Lowlands and San Jacinto Foothills bioregions will be within the area subject to Take (EIRIEIS, p 4 1-19 ) mountain plover (wintering) — Clzaradrzus montanus Localities that w'" be affected include Winchester and Double Butte Approximately 1,160 4VPUB\MKS\652370 20 52 1 acres (15%) of suitable habitat including playas and vernal pools within the 2 Riverside Lowlands will be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 3 4 1-19 ) 4 5 western yellow -billed cuckoo — Coccyzus amencanus occidentalzs 6 Individuals occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be 7 within the area subject to Take Approximately 2,580 acres (22%) of 8 suitable habitat including southern cottonwood/willow riparian, southern 9 sycamore/alder riparian, riparian scrub, riparian forest, and southern willow 10 scrub within the Riverside Lowlands and San Jacinto Foothills bioregions will 11 be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-20 ) 12 13 southwestern willow flycatcher—Empzdonax trazllu extzmus A total of 14 5 of 17 localities will be within the area subject to Take Authorization, 15 however, the localities are located outside suitable habitat areas within 16 existing residential/urban/exotic areas, non-native grassland, or open water 17 Approximately 3,220 acres (23%) of suitable habitat including riparian scrub, 18 excluding tamarisk scrub and mule fat scrub, will be affected throughout the 19 MSHCP Plan Area (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-20 ) 20 21 Peregrine falcon — Falco peregrznus Individuals occurring outside of the 22 MSHCP Conservation Area will be within the area subject to Take 23 However, no impacts to raptor nests will occur Approximately 2,140 acres 24 (12%) of suitable habitat including open water and nparian habitat within the 25 Prado Basin and Santa Ana River will be within the area subject to Take 26 (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-21 ) 27 28 Bald eagle — Halzaeetus leucocephalus Two localities at Lake Riverside RVPUB\MKS\652370 21 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and Lake Hemet will be within the area subject to Take Approximately 2,140 acres (12%) of suitable habitat including nparian habitat in the Pradu Basin/Santa Ana River and open water habitat will be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-21 ) Coastal California gnatcatcher — Polzopnla calfornica cal fornica. Localities that will be within the area subject to Take Authorization include Norco Hills, Alessandro Hills, Quail Valley, and Rancho California east of 1-15 to De Portola Road Approximately 63,700 acres (45%) of suitable habitat including desert scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and coastal sage scrub will be within the area subject to Take (E1R/EIS, p 4 1-22 ) Least Bell's vireo— Vireo belhz pusillus Localities at Mockingbird Canyon would be within the area subject to Take Approximately 2,780 acres (23%` of suitable habitat including riparian scrub, woodlands and forests within the Riverside Lowlands and San Jacinto Foothills bioregions would be within the area subject to Take (EIRIEIS, p 4 1-22 ) San Bernardino kangaroo rat—Dzpodonzys merrzamzparvus Individuals occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area would be within the area subject to Take Approximately 1,785 acres (32%) of suitable habitat including coastal sage scrub and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub would be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-23 ) Stephens' kangaroo rat — Dipodomys stephensz Localities at March Air Reserve Base (ARB), east Riverside, Moreno Valley, Woodcrest, Meade Valley, Perris, Sun City, Norco Hills, Wildomar, Menifee, Murriet' Temecula, Hemet, San Jacinto, Banning/Beaumont, and Double Butte would R'/PUB\MKS\652370 22 54 1 be within the area subject to Take Approximately 11,850 acres (34%) of 2 suitable habitat including coastal sage scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and 3 Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub would be within the area subject to Take 4 (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-23 ) 5 6 Munz's onion —Allzum munzii Two of the 15 known localities located 7 northeast of Alberhill and on privately -owned land would be within the area 8 subject to Take Approximately 15,825 acres (42%) of primary habitat in the 9 MSHCP Plan Area, including chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grassland, 10 peninsular juniper, and woodlands, would be within the area subject to 11 Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-24 ) 12 13 San Diego ambrosia — Ambrosia pumila. One of the three known extant 14 Localities (east of Lake Street in the City of Elsinore) would be within the 15 area subject to Take Approximately 52,010 (70%) acres of primary habitat 16 in the MSHCP Plan Area, including grassland and playas and vernal pools, 17 would be within the area subject to Take Authorization, however, 8,940 18 acres ofthis 52,010 acres would be subject to focused surveys for San Diego 19 ambrosia (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-24 ) 20 21 San Jacinto Valley crownscale — Atriplex coronata var notatior No 22 known localities would be within the area subject to Take Approximately 23 1,370 acres (17%) of primary habitat, including grassland and playas and 24 vernal pools, would be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1- 25 25 ) 26 27 Nevin's barberry — Berberis nevinu Three of the 52 known localities (in 28 the City of Riverside, Aguanga, and Temecula) would be within the area RV2US\MKS\6=2370 23 55 1 subject to Take Approximately 3,990 acres (33%) of primary habitat, 2 including chaparral and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, would be within 3 the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-25 ) 4 5 Thread -leaved brodzaea — Brodzaea filzfolza. Nine of the 30 occurrences 6 would be within the area subject to Take Approximately 1,370 acres (17%) 7 ofpnmary habitat, including grassland and playas and vernal pools, would be 8 within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-26 ) 9 10 Vail Lake ceanothus — Ceanothus ophzochzlus No known localities would 11 be within the area subject to Take Approximately 3,350 acres (20%) of 12 primary habitat, including chaparral, would be within the area subject to 13 Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-26 ) 14 15 Mojave tarplant — Deznandra mohavenszs (formerly known as 16 Hemzzonza mohavenszs) Two of eight occurrences, including along the 17 Banning Idy11wi1d Panoramic Highway and within the San Jacinto Mountains 18 would be within the area subject to Take Approximately 27,850 acres 19 (26%) of primary habitat, including chaparral, and riparian scrub, woodland 20 and forest, would be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-27 ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RVPUB\MKS\652370 Slender -horned spine flower Dodccahema leptoccras Of the 27 University of California at Riverside ("UCR") database and herbarium records, 12 of the occurrences at Gavilan Plateau, north of Meadowbrook, Temesca] Canyon, Lake Elsinore, Valle Vista, Agua Tibia Mountains, El Canso, and east of State Street south of Hemet would be within the area subject to Take Approximately 2,950 acres (26%) of primary habitat, including chaparral and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, would be with]] 24 56 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RVPUB\MKS\652370 the area subject to Take However, approximately 2,290 acres of the within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-27 ) Santa Ana River woollystar—Erzastrumdenszfolzumssp Sanctoruzn. No known localities would be within the area subject to Take Approximately 910 acres (28%) of primary habitat, including Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, would be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-28 ) San Diego button -celery — Eryngium arzstulatuzn var parzshzz No known localities would be within the area subject to Take Although no Take of known occurrences would occur as part of the MSHCP, certain areas located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area may contain vernal pool habitat that could support this species (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-28 ) Parish's meadowfoam — Lzmnanthes gracilzs var parzshzz No known occurrences would be within the area subject to Take Suitable habitat for this species is present outside the MSHCP Conservation Area in ephemeral wetlands and mima mounds in forest glades and mountain areas (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-28 ) Spreading navarretia — Navarretza fossalzs No known localities would be within the area subject to Take Approximately 1,370 acres (17%) of primary habitat, including playas and vernal pools, would be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-28 ) California Orcutt grass — Orcuttza calzfornzca. One of five localities (west of the Santa Rosa Plateau) would be within the area subject to Take Approximately 1,130 acres (14%) of primary habitat, including playas and 25 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vernal pools, would be within the area subject to Take (EIR/EIS, p 4 1- 29 ) 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts Features have been incorporated in the MSIICP to minimize impacts to Listed Covered Species to the extent feasible (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-29) These include assembly of an MSHCP Conservation Area that incorporates substantial acreages of suitable habitat and known locations in a configuration that provides live-in and linkage habitat for a number of species (Ibid) Criteria -based Reserve Assembly would occur in a manner consistent with Rough Step policies and the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy, and other implementation strategies as described in Section 6 1 1 of the MSHCP In addition, the MSHCP includes policies that will provide additiona, protection to some Listed Covered Species occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-29) The narrow endemics plant species policy and the additional survey needs policy, described in Section 6 1 3 and 6 3 2, respectively, of the MSHCP, require surveys to be conducted as part of the project review process for public and private projects where suitable habitat is present (Ibid) The following Listed Covered Species are subject to the narrow endemic plant species policy Munz's onion, San Diego ambrosia, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Nevin's barberry, thread -leaved brodiaea, vail lake ceanothus slender -horned spine flower, spreading navarretia, and California Orcutt grass (EIR/EIS, p 4 1- 30) Additionally, the following Listed Covered Species are subject to the additional survey needs policy western yellow -billed cuckoo, least Bel'' R'•PUE\MK=\652370 26 58 1 vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and San Bernardino kangaroo rat 2 (Ibid ) 3 4 Species detected during these surveys will be conserved in accordance with 5 the respective applicable policy (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-30) Information 6 gathered as a result of species surveys will serve to fill data gaps and inform 7 monitoring and management for species (Ibid) The additional survey 8 requirements and information gathering efforts would be implemented until 9 the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled in a manner that is consistent 10 with the conservation objectives for individual species (Ibid ) 11 12 Wetland species occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area may 13 also receive additional protection as a result of implementation of the 14 ripanan, nvenne, and vernal pool policy described in Section 6 1 2 of the 15 MSHCP (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-30) As part of this policy, survey, mapping, and 16 documentation of riparian, nvenne, vernal pool systems, and other areas that 17 are identified as jurisdictional under Section 1600 et seq of the California 18 Fish and Game Code or Sections 401, 402, or 404 of the Federal Clean 19 Water Act would occur (Ibid) These areas may include playas and vernal 20 pools, open water, meadows and marshes, npanan scrub, woodlands and 21 forests, and other habitat types, known to occur in the MSHCP Plan Area 22 (Ibid) For areas containing riparian, nvenne, or vernal pool features that are 23 located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, avoidance and 24 mrmmization measures, as required as mitigation through the CEQA process 25 or State/federal regulatory processes, will be imposed The avoidance and 26 minimization measures will reduce impacts to wetland habitats supporting 27 Listed Covered Species (Ibid) The following Listed Covered Species will 28 benefit from implementation of the wetland policy vernal pool fairy shrimp, RVPUB\MfS\652370 27 59 1 Riverside fairy shrimp, Santa Ana sucker, Arroyo toad, California red -legged 2 frog, mountain yellow -legged frog, western yellow -billed cuckoo, 3 southwestern willow flycatcher, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, least Bell's 4 vireo, California Orcutt grass, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, thread -leaved 5 brodiaea, San Diego button -celery, and spreading navarretia (EIR/EIS, p 6 4 1-30 ) 7 8 Additionally, the MSHCP provides that if suitable habitat were determined 9 to he present, focused surveys for the following Listed Covered Species will 10 be conducted least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western 1 1 yellow -billed cuckoo, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and Riverside fairy shrimp 12 Localities of wetland species observed during focused surveys will be 13 conserved in accordance with the process of wetland conservation identified 14 in Section 6 1 2 of the MSHCP (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-30 ) 15 16 The Management and Monitoring Programs incorporated in the MSHCP will 17 be implemented to reduce to the extent feasible any significant effects 18 remaining after application of the MSHCP requirements (EIR/EIS, p 4 1- 19 153) Implementation ofthe Management and Monitoring Programs outlined 20 ' in the MSCHP will reduce all other potential impacts/consequences of the 21 MSHCP to a less than significant level (Ibid ) Therefore, the MSHCP itself 22 has been designed to serve as mitigation for impacts resulting from 23 development and to meet the issuance criteria for Take Authorization for 24 listed Covered Species (Response F-120) With the combination of impact - 25 reduction features incorporated into the MSHCP, including MSHCP 26 Conservation Area configuration adaptive management and monitoring, and 27 species survey and avoidance/minimization policies, impacts to Listed and 28 Covered Species are less than significant and no mitigation measures an RVPu2\NKS\652370 28 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 required (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-32 ) In the cumulative context, the MSHCP will benefit the Covered Species by preserving their habitat in order to address their life cycle needs Thus, based on the features of the MSHCP itself, cumulative impacts to Covered Species are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required (EIR/EIS, p 51-6) C Biological Resources (Non -Listed Covered Species only) 1 Impacts The Non -Listed Covered Species include 65 of the 83 Covered Wildlife Species and 52 of 63 Covered Plant Species The impacts to the 115 Non - Listed Covered Species are quantified based on the best existing information available for known occurrences and potential suitable habitat for each Non - Listed Covered Species (EIR/EIS, Table 4C) For certain Non -Listed Covered Species, such as arroyo chub and San Bernardino flying squirrel, the precise quantification of the impact is undetermined at this time due to lack of existing available information regarding these species Hb PUB\MK5\652370 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts Features have been incorporated in the MSHCP to reduce impacts to Non - Listed Covered Species to below a level of significance (EIR/EIS, p 4 1- 86) These measures include assembly of an MSHCP Conservation Area that incorporates substantial acreages of suitable habitat and known locations in a configuration that provides live-in and linkage habitat for a number of species (Ibid) The Criteria -based Reserve Assembly will occur in a manner consistent with Rough Step policies and the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Process described in Section 6 1 1 of the MSHCP 29 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RJPUB\MKS\652370 In addition, the MSHCP includes policies that will afford some additional protection to Non -Listed Covered Species occurring outside ofthe MSHC. Conservation Area (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-86) The narrow endemics plant species policy and the additional survey needs policy, described in Section 6 1 3 and 6 3 2, respectively, of the MSHCP, require surveys to be conducted as part of the project review process for public and private projects where suitable habitat is present (lbid ) Species detected during these surveys will be conserved in accordance with the respective applicable policy (EIPJEIS, p 4 1-87) Information gathered as a result of species surveys will serve to fill data gaps and inform monitoring and management for a species (Ibid) The additional survey requirements and information gathering efforts will be implemented until the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled in a manner that is consistent with the conservation objectives for individual species Wetland species occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area may also receive additional protection as a result of implementation of the riparian, riverine, and vernal pool policy described in Section 6 1 2 of the MSHCP (Ibid ) As part of this policy, survey, mapping, and documentation of riparian, riverine, vernal pool systems, and other areas that are identified as jurisdictional under Section 1600 et seq of the California Fish and Game Code or Sections 401, 402, or 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act will occur (Ibid) These areas may include playas and vernal pools, open water, meadows and marshes, riparian scrub, woodlands and forests, and other habitat types, known to occur in the MSHCP Plan Area For areas containing riparian, riverine, or vernal pool features that are locat'-' outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, avoidance and minimization 30 62 1 measures, as required as mitigation through the CEQA process or 2 State/federal regulatory processes, will be employed The avoidance and 3 minimization measures will reduce impacts to wetland habitats supporting a 4 number of Non -Listed Covered Species, including 10 plant species and 22 5 wildlife species (Ibid) The management and monitoring programs 6 incorporated in the MSHCP will be implemented to reduce to the extent 7 feasible any significant effects remaining after application of the minimizing 8 measures incorporated in the MSHCP (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-153) 9 Implementation of the Management and Monitoring Programs outlined in the 10 MSCHP will mitigate all other potential impacts/consequences of the 11 MSHCP to a less than significant level (Ibid) With the combination of 12 impact -reduction features incorporated into the project itself, including 13 ' MSHCP Conservation Area configuration adaptive management and 14 monitoring, and species survey and avoidance/minimization policies, direct 15 and indirect impacts to Non -Listed Covered Species are less than significant 16 and no mitigation measures are required (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-88 ) 17 18 In the cumulative context, the MSHCP will benefit the Covered Species by 19 preserving their habitat in order to address their life cycle needs Thus, based 20 on the features of the MSHCP itself, cumulative impacts to Covered Species 21 are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required (EIR/EIS, 22 p 5 1-6 ) 23 24 D Biological Resources (Cores and Linkages only) 25 1 Impacts 26 The MSHCP Conservation Area comprises a variety of existing and 27 proposed cores, extensions of existing cores, linkages, constrained linkages, 28 and non-contiguous habitat blocks (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-95, see also EIR/EIS, RV?U9\MKS\ 6523%0 3 1 63 1 Figure 4 1 3 ) All of the cores and linkages depicted in Figure 4 1 3 of the 2 EIR/EIS will be incorporated in the MSHCP Conservation Area (EIR/EIL, 3 p 4 1-96) The MSHCP provides for the movement of native resident and 4 migratory species and protects established wildlife corridors and genetic 5 flow (Ibid) The MSHCP also protects the use of native wildlife nursery 6 sites (Ibid) Likewise, the MSHCP will not cause adverse cumulative 7 effects related to interference with the movement of any native resident or 8 migratory fish or wildlife species or obstruction of genetic flow for the 9 identified Planning Species (EIR/EIS, p 5 1-7) Part of the purpose and 10 goals of the MSHCP is to use regional planning efforts to assemble a 11 MSHCP Conservation Area that will preserve contiguous blocks of habitat 12 in large enough areas to ensure that the MSHCP Conservation Area will 13 allow movement of species and flow of genetic information (Ibid) 14 Therefore, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts related to cores ar-' 15 linkages resulting from the MSHCP are less than significant (EIR/EIS, p 16 4 1-99 ) 17 18 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts 19 Based on features of the MSHCP itself, impacts to cores and linkages are 20 less than significant and no mitigation measures are required 21 22 E Biological Resources (Edge Effects only) 23 1 Impacts 24 Edge effects could occur to species and habitats within the MSHCP 25 Conservation Area if proposed land uses and activities in take authorized 26 areas occur in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area (EIR/EIS, p 27 4 1-103 ) It is assumed that edge effects resulting from constructer 28 activities include dust, noise, and general human presence that may RVPUB\MKS\652370 32 64 1 temporarily disrupt species and habitat vitality and construction -related soil 2 erosion and runoff (Ibid) It is also assumed that edge effects resulting from 3 development or land use practices in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation 4 Area, includes long-term presence of unshielded noise -generating land uses 5 in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area, unshielded night -lighting 6 directed within the MSHCP Conservation Area, use of exotic landscape plant 7 materials that may invade native vegetation communities within the MSHCP 8 Conservation Area, discharge of uncontrolled or unfiltered urban runoff 9 toward the MSHCP Conservation Area, including potential toxics, and 10 uncontrolled access, dumping or trespass within the MSHCP Conservation 11 Area (Ibid) For those cores and linkages with higher perimeter -to -area 12 ratios, edge effects will be considered to have a greater effect on Conserved 13 Habitat and Covered Species than for the larger cores and linkages 14 incorporated in the MSHCP Conservation Area (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-103, see 15 also EIR/EIS, Table 4E ) 16 17 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts 18 A variety of features have been incorporated into the MSHCP that will 19 minimize edge effects These include the following Implementation of 20 standard Best Management Practices (Appendix C of the MSHCP), 21 Implementation of the Land Use Guidelines Pertaining to the 22 Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 614 of the MSHCP), and 23 Implementation of the siting, design, construction, operations, and 24 maintenance guidelines for Covered Activities within the Cntena Area and 25 Allowable Uses within the MSHCP Conservation Area (Section 7 0 of the 26 MSHCP) Therefore, based on features of the MSHCP itself, the MSHCP's 27 edge effects are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required 28 (Ibid ) R'/PUB\MKS\6=2370 33 65 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F Agricultural Resources 1 Impacts The County determined that the MSHCP would have a significant effect if it would result in the conversion of agricultural land to non agricultural use To thoroughly analyze the possibility of both direct and indirect impacts to agriculture, three different categories of agriculture are identified existing utilized agricultural land, land zoned or designated under the Cities' existing or the County's Draft General Plans and State Designated Farmland (EIS/EIS, § 4 2 ) RVPUe\MNS\6523%0 There are no significant impacts to existing actively used agricultural lands because there is no conversion of Existing Agricultural Operations to non- agricultural uses Existing Agricultural Operations are considered a Covered Activity and will not only be permitted to continue under the Plan, but will also receive Take Authorization Under the MSHCP, Existing Agricultura, Operations can continue indefinitely, even within the Criteria Area Because Existing Agricultural Operations are a Covered Activity under the MSHCP, no direct or indirect impact would occur Additionally, the MSHCP is not a land use document and does not cause the conversion of any land Impacts to zoned or General Plan designated agricultural land are considered insignificant because the MSHCP does not conflict with any zoning or General Plan designations The MSHCP is not a land use document and does not establish any land use categories The MSHCP expressly authorizes the continuation of Existing Agricultural Operations The MSHCP does not result in the conversion of State Designated Farmlar-' to non-agricultural use Of the 99,090 acres of State Designated Farmlana 34 66 1 in Western Riverside County, approximately 18,653 acres are in the Criteria 9 Area and up to 10,419 acres of Designated Farmland, including 6,564 acres 3 of Designated Farmland that have already been incorporated into existing 4 reserves, may be conserved during Reserve Assembly Additionally, the 5 MSHCP expressly allows the continuance of Existing Agricultural 6 Operations To the extent that State Designated Farmland is not being 7 actively used for agricultural production, the MSHCP will not cause its 8 "conversion" to non-agricultural use 9 10 The MSHCP allows the Take Authorization to apply to up to10,000 acres 11 of New Agricultural Land within the MSHCP Criteria Area and unlimited 12 new agricultural land outside the Criteria Area, this will more than offset any 13 impacts from Reserve Assembly The MSHCP also provides a mechanism 14 for considering future increases to the New Agricultural Land Cap permitted 15 within the Criteria Area Accordingly, no cumulatively significant impact to 16 agricultural resources will occur (EIR/EIS, p 5 1-8 ) Based on features 17 incorporated into the MSHCP, direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to 18 agricultural land are insignificant 19 20 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts 21 Based on features of the MSHCP itself, impacts to agriculture are less than 22 significant and no mitigation measures are required 23 24 G Population Housing and Employment 25 1 Impacts 26 The MSHCP includes 120,200 acres within the County and 14,800 acres 27 within the cities of Western Riverside County that are currently designated 28 for housing units (EIR/EIS, p 4 3-2) It also includes 3,200 acres in the RV PU©'•,MKS\ 62 370 35 67 1 County and 2,900 acres within the cities of Western Riverside County that 2 are currently designated for employment use Implementation of the MSHC 3 will likely cause dwelling units and employment facilities previously planned 4 for development within the Cntena Area to be shifted into areas that are not 5 to be conserved (Ibid ) 6 7 Implementation of the MSHCP will not reduce or increase the amount of 8 development allowed pursuant to local land use controls (EIRJEIS, p 4 3- 9 2) The MSHCP does not authorize or contemplate any growth, 10 construction or development (Ibid) Implementation of the MSHCP may 11 change the location of development and possibly site -specific density within 12 Western Riverside County (Ibid) To address this change to housing and 13 employment, the County and cities within Western Riverside County will 14 utilize a variety of planning techniques, including zoning overlays, general 15 plan amendments, zoning ordinance amendments, the clustering 16 development, and density bonuses (Ibid ) 17 18 The MSHCP, therefore, will not have a significant direct impact on 19 population, housing, and employment (EIR/EIS, p 4 3-3) The MSHCP 20 will not displace substantial numbers of housing units or persons, 21 implementation will only restnct where future development could occur 22 (ibid) Additionally, implementation of the MSHCP will not exacerbate the 23 jobs to housing imbalance within Western Riverside County and cities 24 Implementation of the MSHCP will have the same effect on employment 25 facilities as housing units, which is merely to modify future locations and 26 densities of development (Ibid) Therefore, the MSHCP will not have a 27 significant impact on population, housing, and employment (Ibid ) 28 ?VPUB\MKS\523'O 36 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts Based on features of the MSHCP itself, impacts to Population Housing and Employment are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required (EIR/EIS, p 4 3-3 ) H Public Services (Fire protection and Parks only) 1 Impacts The MSHCP will not directly result in additional development, nor will it involve the expansion of wildlands Thus. the risk of wildland fires will not increase, as the urban-wildland edge will not change (EIR/EIS, p 4 4-1 ) However, the MSHCP will accommodate growth in areas outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area Thus, indirect effects could occur as development in the non -conserved regions approaches the edges of the MSHCP Conservation Area Adequate fire protection facilities will be provided to accommodate the increased development at the time such development occurs (Ibid )Furthermore, as existing fire protection facilities are located in public/quasi-public lands, and as additional fire protection facilities are allowed to be constructed within MSHCP Conservation Area, the configuration ofMSHCP Conservation Area will not limit fire protection access in the MSHCP Plan Area Thus, no existing or planned fire protection facilities will require deletion or relocation as a result of the MSHCP (EIR/EIS, p 4 4-2) Setting aside areas for conservation within larger natural areas will allow cities and the County to plan appropriate land uses along the anticipated urban-wildland border (Ibid) This could indirectly result in decreased risk of wildland fire damage by placing compatible land uses and necessary buffer areas along the edges ofthe MSHCP Conservation Area (Ibid) Additionally, the Project's cumulative impact on fire protection will be beneficial because the establishment of the MSHCP RV'UP\MKS\652370 37 69 1 Conservation Area will allow the RCA, County and the Cities to plan land 2 uses with the knowledge of where the likely wildland-urban boundaries w. 3 be located, and to plan for fire -safe development (EI /EIS, p 5 1-10 ) 4 Accordingly, no adverse cumulative effects will occur (Ibid ) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Additionally, no impact will occur to existing park facilities or recreation Planned park facilities that are located within the MSHCP Conservation Area will be subject to potential restrictions contained in the Reserve Criteria for the cell in which the park is located (EIR/EIS, p 4 4-3 ) Recreational use is considered to be a conditionally compatible use within the MSHCP MSHCP Conservation Area Five planned park facilities are proposed within the MSHCP Conservation Area of the MSHCP (Ibid) All of these parks are located near edges of the MSHCP Conservation Area, which will facilitate public access Thus, the MSHCP will not require the deletion or relocation of planned parks (Ibid) The preservation of natural land also provide additional opportunities for recreation (Ibid) As recreational use is included as a conditionally compatible use within the MSHCP Conservation Area, the protected areas may result in higher -quality natural 19 I areas for public enjoyment (Ibid) Thus, planned park facilities may be 20 21 22 supplemented by recreational opportunities available in the MSHCP Conservation Area (Ibid) Likewise, no adverse direct or indirect cumulative impacts will occur as a result of the MSHCP (EIR/E1S, p 5 1- 23 10) 24 25 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts 26 Based on features of the MSHCP itself, impacts to Public Services are less 27 than significant and no mitigation measures are required 28 RVPIjB\MYS\652370 38 70 1 I Transportation and Circulation 2 1 Impacts 3 There are several existing roadways within public/quasi-public lands, 4 including interstates, freeways, State highways, city- and County -maintained 5 roadways, as well as local roads, which are not city- or County -maintained, 6 that provide property access (EIRJEIS, p 4 5-1 - 4 5-2) This latter 7 category of roadways is generally maintained by the adjacent property 8 owners, either individually or collectively (Ibtd) Necessary operation and 9 maintenance activities conducted for safety purposes will be permitted within 10 public/quasi-public lands Therefore, there will be no significant impacts on 11 existing roadways and emergency access within public/quasi public lands 12 under the MSHCP (Ibid ) 13 14 Some of the existing County/City-maintained unpaved roads may be paved 15 within the existing roadbed as future traffic, safety and/or environmental 16 conditions warrant (EIR!EIS, p 4 5-2) Safety improvements to other 17 publicly maintained existing roadways within public/quasi-public lands are 18 Covered Activities under the MSHCP (Ibid) Therefore, there will be no 19 significant impact on existing roadways and emergency access within 20 public/quasi public lands for roadways owned by the County (Ibid ) 21 Maintenance activities on roadways maintained by others are also provided 22 limited coverage, subject to the submittal of an application for Certificate of 23 Inclusion (Ibid) Therefore, there will be no significant impact on existing 24 roadways and emergency access within public/quasi public lands for privately 25 owned roadways (Ibid ) 26 27 Planned roadways are proposed within the County and Cities to facilitate 28 planned growth Planned roadways identified in Section 7 3 5 of the RV.UO\MKS\652310 39 71 1 MSHCP are Covered Activities within the Criteria Area Roadways other 2 than those identified in Section 7 3 5 of the MSHCP are not covered withoia. 3 an amendment of the MSHCP The MSHCP includes design and sitting 4 guidelines for planned roadways The implementation of these guidelines will 5 ensure that planned roadways are designed and constructed in a manner 6 consistent with the objectives of the MSHCP, while providing for the 7 efficient passage of persons and goods through Western Riverside County, 8 the alleviation of traffic congestion, the maintenance of level of service 9 standards, and continuation ofadequate emergency access/evacuation routes 10 Since the operation, maintenance and construction of existing and planned 11 roadways are covered activities within the MSHCP Conservation Area, 12 potential transportation -related impacts resulting from implementation ofthe 13 TvISHCP will be less than significant 14 15 Further, since the MSHCP does not authorize or contemplate any physical 16 development, it will not have significant cumulative direct impacts on 17 transportation because it will not decrease the level of service or increase 18 traffic on any roadway (EIR/EIS, p 5 1-10) Additionally, although the 19 MSHCP accommodates development in accordance with regional growth 20 projections, it will not result in any cumulatively significant indirect decrease 21 in the level of service or increase in traffic on any roadway (TM) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Therefore, cumulative impacts related to transportation issues will be less than significant (Ibid ) 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts Based on features of the MSHCP itself. impacts to Transportation and Circulation are less than significant and no mitigation measures are require,' (EIR/EIS, p 4 5-5 ) RVPUENMKS\652370 40 72 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RVPUB\MKS\552370 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the following impacts potentially resulting from the adoption of the MSHCP will be only partially avoided or lessened by Project design features and a statement of overriding findings is therefore included herein A Biological (Native Grasslands Vegetation Communities) 1 Impacts The Project could reduce grassland (including native and non-native grassland) by up to 72 percent Species -specific analyses for grassland species and raptors, for which it is important to maintain grassland, are presented in the individual species accounts (EIR/EIS, pp 4 1-14, 6 1-3 ) The species accounts conclude features incorporated in the MSHCP including habitat Conservation, MSHCP Conservation Area configuration, achievement of species -specific objectives and implementation of monitoring and management measures that will achieve the overall MSHCP biological goal for each grassland Covered Species which is "In the MSHCP Plan Area, Conserve Covered Species and their Habitats " (Response G-16 ) However, as the vegetation coverage does not distinguish between native and non-native grassland, impacts to sensitive native grassland cannot be quantified independently, and significant impacts to this vegetation community have been determined to be significant (E1R/EIS, p 6 1-3 ) 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen Project impacts (EIRIEIS, p 6 1-3 ) B Biological (Non Covered Species) 1 Impacts Through the MSHCP process, a total of 255 species were identified as 41 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 having the potential to exist within the MSHCP Plan Area (EIR/EIS, p 4 1- 88) The list of 255 species encompasses all species for which adequat, information is available to conduct an impact analysis under CEQA and NEPA (Ibid ) Analysis of species other than the 255 identified will involve speculation that is not required by CEQA or NEPA Of these 255 species, the MSHCP does not include 109 of these species as Covered Species (EIR/EIS, Table 4D [discusses the species not covered under the MSHCP and provides a brief explanation for each species]) While it is assumed that the Conservation provided under the MSHCP could potentially benefit Non - Covered Species that occur within the MSHCP Conservation Area, it is not possible to quantify the level of Conservation because of the lack of information available for these species or because the species are not known to occur within the MSI-ICP Plan Area (Ibid) However, the MSHCP contains several features that will contribute to the conservation of Nc'- Covered Species, including the maintenance of cores and linkages and impact avoidance and minimization policies In addition, mitigation of adverse effects offered through the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Programs will provide overall benefits to habitats that could result in a certain level of conservation for Non Covered Species (Ibid) However, even with the benefits offered by the MSHCP, impacts, including impacts resulting from Covered Activities, have been determined to be potentially significant (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-89 ) 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen Project impacts (EIR/EIS, pp 4 1-89, 6 1-3 ) C Biological (Edge Effects Cumulative) RVPUB\MHS\652370 42 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Impacts The MSHCP could cause adverse significant cumulative effects associated with the introduction of land uses immediately adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area (EIR!EIS, p 5 1-7) Cumulative effects associated with the proposed Take Authorization will involve direct loss of habitat and species associated with ground disturbance (Ibid) Cumulative indirect effects could occur to species and habitats within the MSHCP Conservation Area associated with proposed land uses and activities in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area (Ibid) Cumulative significant indirect impacts associated with edge effects and increased development pressure outside the MSHCP Conservation Area and other MSHCPs or HCPs proposed in areas adjacent to Western Riverside County are considered cumulatively significant (EIR/EIS, p 5 1-8 ) 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen Project impacts D Extractive Resources (Mineral Resources) 1 Impacts Implementation of the MSHCP will not result in development or mineral extraction (EIR/EIS, p 4 2-19) Thus, no land -use incompatibilities will occur The MSHCP could accommodate growth and development as well as natural resource conservation throughout the MSHCP Plan Area, and will further the goals of the general plans and community plans of the jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP Thus, no significant impacts will occur (Ibid ) RVPUB\MKS\6S2370 43 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Implementation of the MSHCP could result in up to 4,300 acres of land with known potential to be used for mineral extraction being set aside fo. conservation (EIR/EIS, p 4 2-16) This represents approximately 22 percent of such lands within the MSHCP Plan Arca Areas set aside for conservation will not be available for mineral extraction use As 10, 900 acres (2 5 times the number of acres currently used in mineral resource extraction) of land designated as Mineral Resource Zone 2 will remain available for use, the MSHCP will not result in a significant loss of a regionally valuable resource (lbid) The existing extraction sites are also locally important resources, and will not be affected under the MSHCP (EIR/EIS, p 4 2-18 ) The sites currently in use will not be restricted in any way The potential for establishment of additional mineral extraction sites in the future may, however, be restricted in some areas By applying the estimated growth rate of 68 percent (from the Riverside County General Pla^ build out land use designations) to each area, and comparing the acres needed for growth to the acres of MRZ-2 available after project implementation, potential impacts to local resources were determined (for cities with land classified as MRZ-2) (Ibid) There will be sufficient available acres of MRZ-2 land to accommodate anticipated future growth in mineral extraction throughout the MSHCP Plan Area because the amount of MRZ-2 land available is greater that the anticipated regional growth rate, with the exception of the City of Lake Elsinore Mineral extraction growth within Lake Elsinore will be restricted to 55 percent, which is less than the anticipated regional growth rate of 68 percent (EIR/EIS, Table 4Z ) Accordingly, impacts to locally important resources will be restricted to the City of Lake Elsinore Impacts pertaining to conflicts and land -use incompatibilities will be less than significant (EIR/EIS, p 4 2-20 ) RVPU5\MKS\652370 44 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the cumulative context, the loss of any portion of such an MRZ, when taken with similar losses that may result from the implementation of other projects (such as from assembling the existing reserves) represents a cumulatively significant and unavoidable impact (EIR/EIS, p 5 1-8) The MSHCP will not have any other significant direct or indirect cumulative impacts on mineral resources, because implementation of the MSHCP will not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, as delineated on a General Plan or other land use plan (Ibid ) 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen Project impacts (EIRIEIS, p 4 2-20 ) E Housing Population, and Employment (Indirect and Cumulative Impacts only) 1 Impacts Although the MSHCP itself does not provide any housing, employment or development, the MSHCP will remove impediments to growth and development within the MSHCP Plan Area outside the MSHCP Conservation Area Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the MSHCP is deemed to have significant indirect impacts on Population, Housing, and Employment Likewise, the MSHCP may have significant cumulative impacts on Population, Housing, and Employment (EIR/EIS, p 5 1-9 ) RVPJB\MKS GS237e 2 Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen Project impacts 45 77 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that, pursuant to State CEQA 2 Guidelines (Section 15126 2 subd (d)), the EIR/EIS discussed how the MSHCP could directly L 3 indirectly lead to economic, population, or housing growth 4 5 A Growth Inducing Impacts 6 The MSHCP will not directly generate residential, commercial, or industrial 7 development or induce population growth within the MSHCP Plan Area (EIR/EIS, 8 p 6 1-5) The MSHCP may, however, remove existing impediments to growth 9 because it will authorize Take of listed species in accordance with the terms of the 10 MSHCP and the IA (EIS/EIS, p 4 3-3 ) The intent of the MSHCP is for the 11 Wildlife Agencies to grant Take Authorization to local junsdiction for otherwise 12 lawful actions such as development that may Take Covered Species outside of the 13 MSHCP Conservation Area, in exchange for each jurisdiction's support for the 14 assembly of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area (EIR/EIS, p 6 1-5) Thus_ 15 the MSHCP will remove existing impediments to growth outside the MSHC. 16 Conservation Area but within the MSHCP Plan Area As a result, the MSHCP could 17 redistribute growth in the region, as development demand may occur in areas where 18 it is not currently anticipated (TM ) Accordingly, the MSHCP may indirectly 19 induce growth (EIS/EIS, p 4 3-3) Although implementation of the MSHCP will 20 not cause growth in Western Riverside County to exceed regional growth 21 projections, out of an abundance of caution, the Project's indirect growth -inducing 22 impacts are deemed to be significant No feasible mitigation exists for this impact 23 that would substantially lessen Project impacts (EIR/EIS, p 4 2-20 ) 24 25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has considered and 26 rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below CEQA requires that 27 an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project 28 which (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal, and (2) may b RV?U2\MKS\552370 46 78 1 feasibly accomplished to a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considenng the 2 economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved An EIR must only evaluate 3 reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most of the project objectives, and 4 evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is 5 to be judged against a "rule of reason " The lead agency is not required to choose an alternative 6 identified in an EIR if the alternative (1) does not substantially reduce significant environmental 7 impacts, or (2) does not meet project objectives, or (3) there are social, economic, technological or 8 other considerations which make the alternative infeasible 9 10 The EIR/EIS identified the County's objectives for the Project, which are 11 12 I To assemble a criteria based conservation area that will assist in the 13 conservation of Covered Species while allowing flexibility in the assembly 14 and location of the MSHCP Conservation Area (EIR/EIS, p 1 2-4 ) 15 16 2 To the maximum extent possible, streamline development authorizations 17 under the FESA and CESA (EIR/EIS, p 1 2-4 ) 18 19 3 Through regional habitat planning, conserve habitat in functional blocks, 20 rather than on a piecemeal ad hoc basis (EIR/EIS, p 1 2-4 ) 21 22 4 Provide Take Authorization for the transportation, infrastructure, housing 23 and employment base needed to accommodate projected growth in Western 24 Riverside County (EIR/EIS, p 1 2-4 ) 25 26 5 Coordinate and maximize the value of expenditures of limited public and 27 private funds in such a manner that assures assembly and maintenance of a 28 CVPUB\MKS\652370 47 79 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MSHCP Conservation Area that conserves the Covered Species pursuant to state and federal law (EIR/EIS, p 1 2.4 ) 6 Develop a fee -based funding plan that will generate sufficient revenue to contribute to the MSHCP Conservation Area's funding needs (EIR/EIS, p 1 2-4 ) 7 To the maximum extent practicable, eliminate surprises by providing certainty to Permittees and Third Parties that the Take Authonzations wi11 cover additional species that may be listed while the Permits are in effect (EIR/EIS, p 1 2-4 ) 8 To the extent legally possible, provide assurances that private parties will not be required to mitigate biological impacts except as specified in the MSHCP (EIR/EIS, p 1 2-4 ) 9 Expand the conservation value of existing public and quasi -public resources for the benefit of Covered Species (EIR/EIS, p 1 2-4 ) 10 Comply with all federal and constitutional requirements (EIR/EIS, p 1 2- 5) A Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate Species Alternative 1 Description This alternative only addresses the 39 listed, proposed, and strong candidate species in Western Riverside County Under this alternative, a total of approximately 465,860 acres would be conserved, including approximate1- 346,530 acres within existing reserves and approximately 119,300 acres or RVPUS\MKS\652370 48 80 1 currently private land outside existing reserves (EIR/EIS, p ES -5, Table 2 ES -A ) 3 4 2 Finding 5 This alternative fails to meet basic project objectives, would not substantially 6 reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased 7 impacts 8 9 3 Supporting Explanation 10 This alternative does not meet project objectives Because it covers only 39 11 species, this alternative does not provide the maximum possible certainty that 12 the Take Authorization will cover additional species that may be listed while 13 the permits are in effect Likewise, because this alternative covers only 39 14 species instead of 146, it does not provide assurances that, to the maximum 15 extent legally possible, private parties will not be required to further mitigate 16 impacts under FESA and CESA Further, this alternative fails to conserve 17 habitat in functional blocks because it does not incorporate several cores and 18 linkages that are necessary to create a criteria based reserve (EIR/EIS, p 19 4 1-114 ) 20 21 Moreover, this alternative does not include any additional features or 22 mitigation that would reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable 23 impacts (EIR/EIS, Table ES -B) This alternative will also have a significant 24 and unavoidable impact on Biology, Mineral Resources, and Population 25 Housing and Employment (EIRlEIS, Table ES -B) The failure of this 26 alternative to conserve certain cores and linkages will actually cause a greater 27 impact to the environment than the Project Failure to incorporate necessary 28 cores and linkages would have significant effects with respect to the R'/PUB\MKS\652370 49 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 conservation of certain species and would impede the overall function of the MSHCP (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-114) The exclusion of the Cactus Valley (Proposed Core 4) from the MSHCP Conservation Area would adversely affect the function of the MSHCP Conservation Area by not providing a connection from Diamond Valley Lake/Lake Skinner to National Forest lands to the east Absence of this linkage would isolate the existing multi - species reserve from conserved lands to the east Thus, by isolating existing resources instead of linking them, this alternative also fails to expand the conservation value of existing public and quasi -public resources Additionally, Take authorized in this area would adversely affect planning for species identified for this Core, such as the Quino checkerspot butterfly (EIR/EIS, pp, 4 1-114 - 4 1-115) The reduction in cores and linkages also results in this alternative having significant and unavoidable edge effects greater than the Project (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-116 ) Further, this alternative increases impacts by reducing the conservation of suitable habitat and species localities at Temescal Wash, Vail Lake, Temecula Creek, Wilson Creek, Anza Valley, Badlands and Reche Canyon (EIS/EIS, p 4 1-107) The impacts of this alternative would generally be much greater in magnitude compared to the Project because of the reduction in conserved habitat (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-106 ) Therefore, the County finds that the Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate Species Alternative does not substantially reduce environmental impacts, results in increased impacts and fails to meet project objectives and therefore rejects it (EIR/E1S, p 2 2-1 ) B Listed and Proposed Species Alternative RVPUB\MKS\652370 50 82 1 1 Description 2 This alternative only addresses the 32 listed and proposed candidate species 3 Under this alternative, a total of approximately 440,370 acres would be 4 conserved, including approximately 346,530 acres within existing reserves 5 and approximately 93,840 acres of currently private land outside existing 6 reserves (EIR/EIS, p ES -5, Table ES -A ) 7 8 2 Finding 9 This alternative fails to meet basic project objectives, would not substantially 10 reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased 11 impacts 12 13 3 Supporting Explanation 14 This alternative places less emphasis on broad -based ecosystem conservation, 15 conserves less habitat and fewer species than the Project (EIR/EIS, pp ES - 16 5, 6 1-6) Because it covers only 32 species, this alternative does not provide 17 the maximum possible certainty that the Take Authorization will cover 18 additional species that may be listed while the permits are in effect 19 Likewise, this alternative does not provide assurances that, to the maximum 20 extent legally possible, private parties will not be required to mitigate impacts 21 under FESA and CESA except as required in the Plan 22 23 This alternative fails to meet project objectives because it does not conserve 24 habitat in functional blocks A reduced level of conservation of suitable 25 habitat and species localities at Temescal Wash, Vail Lake, Temecula Creek, 26 Wilson Creek, Anza Valley, Badlands and Reche Canyon is anticipated under 27 this alternative when compared to the Project (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-124) It 28 would not provide large habitat blocks in the Badlands for foraging raptors RVPUB\MKS\652370 51 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 or mammals to connect to the National Forest lands (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-128 " This alternative will not reduce any significant impacts of the Project to below a level of significance (EIR/EIS, Table ES -B) In fact, this alternative will have a greater significant and unavoidable impact on Biology, Mineral Resources, and Population Housing and Employment than the Project (EIR/EIS, Table ES -B) Impacts to Non -Listed Covered Species would be much greater in magnitude when compared to the Project because this alternative conserves significantly less habitat (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-122 ) Additionally, all of the proposed cores and linkages and extensions of existing cores and linkages would be absent from this alternative Existing cores would remain isolated and the reduction in cores and linkages would also result in this alternative having significant and unavoidable edge effects (EIR/EIS, p 4 1-129) Moreover, the option to connect these areas future may be compromised if development occurs within the cores and linkages Therefore, the County finds that the Listed and Proposed Species Alternative results in increased impacts, fails to meet project objectives and therefore rejects it (EIR/EIS, p 2 2-1 ) C Existing Reserves Alternative 1 'Description Under this alternative, conservation activities would be focused on existing reserves only The federal and State permit authorizing Take would only apply to species adequately conserved on existing reserves (EIR/EIS, p ES -5, Table ES -A ) 2 Finding RVPUB\MKS\65[370 52 84 1 This alternative fails to meet basic project objectives, would not substantially 2 reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased 3 impacts 4 5 3 Supporting Explanation 6 This alternative conserves far less habitat and fewer species than the Project 7 Habitat would be conserved on an ad hoc basis - if at all - rather than in 8 functional blocks This alternative fails to expand the value of existing public 9 and quasi -public resources and fails to eliminate surprises to the maximum 10 extent possible This alternative does not provide a streamlined approach to 11 development, instead, impacts resulting from development activities would 12 continue to be subject to a variety of local, state and federal regulatory 13 processes (EIR/EIS, p 4 3-6 )Nor would this alternative include mitigation 14 for future development or a funding plan that would finance the management 15 of the existing reserves 16 17 Under this alternative, fewer species and less habitat will be conserved 1 8 because the federal and State permit authorizing Take will only apply to 19 species adequately conserved on existing reserves (EIR/EIS, p ES -5) Of 20 the 32 species currently fisted or proposed for listing, only two bird species, 21 the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrznus) and western yellow -billed cuckoo 22 (Coccyzus americanus occzdentalis), would be "protected" under this 23 alternative Only one mammal species, Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys 24 stephensz), would be conserved based on the existing HCP, however, 25 protection would not be expanded to populations outside the existing HCP 26 area Additionally, two amphibian species, mountain yellow -legged frog 27 (Rana muscosa) and California red -legged frog (Rana aurora draytonzz), and 28 one plant species, San Diego button -celery (Eryngzum arzstulatum var RV oUB\MKS\ 052 370 8553 1 parishii), could be considered to be protected based on conservation on 2 Santa Rosa Plateau and on United States Forestry Service lands The 3 remaining 26 listed and proposed species would not be considered protected 4 under this alternative (EIR/EIS, p ES -5, Table ES -A ) 5 6 Under the Existing Reserves Alternative, land will be conserved on a project - 7 by -project basis, and there will be no coordinated system for management or 8 MSHCP Conservation Area configuration Conservation of species and 9 habitats provided through mitigation and compensation under the existing 10 regulatory framework will likely result in a pattern of conservation that is 11 fragmented, and managed in a piecemeal fashion 12 13 Under the Existing Reserves Alternative, there will not be a coordinated 14 system of linkages provided to connect conservation areas This will cause 15 the isolation of existing cores and result in increased edge effects (EIR/EIS, 16 p 4 1-136) Edge effects will be exacerbated because of the loss of cores 17 and linkages and increased human interaction with wildlife (EIR/EIS, p 18 4 1-137) The ability to provide linkages through project -by -project 19 mitigation may be precluded over time through continued development which 20 would result in the isolation of existing. reserves 21 n0 23 24 25 26 27 28 RVPUB\MKS\65:3:0 This alternative will also have gieatei impacts thaii the Protect and significant and unavoidable impacts on Sensitive Natural Vegetation Communities, Listed Covered Species, Non -Listed Covered Species, Non - Covered Species, Cores and Linkages, the relationship to adopted or approved HCPs and NCCPs and Edge Effects (EIR/EIS, Table ES -B ) Additionally, significant impacts to adopted and approved HCPs and NCCPs are anticipated under this alternative, due to the failure to maintain critica 54 86 1 linkage components present in other adopted HCPs and NCCPs (EfRJEIS, 2 p 41-136) 3 4 Under the Existing Reserves Alternative, new species will continue to be 5 listed in the future, and regulation of those species and their habitats will be 6 applied under the current regulatory processes, however, historical data 7 demonstrates that application of current regulations and policies will not 8 avoid the decline of species in the MSHCP Plan Area nor will these policies 9 meet the project objective of conserving species or eliminating surprises and 10 providing certainty to Permittees Moreover, this alternative was not 11 designated Environmentally Superior to the MSHCP (EIR/EIS, p 6 1-6 ) 12 Therefore, the County finds that the Listed and Proposed Species Alternative 13 results in increased impacts, fails to meet project objectives and therefore 14 rejects it (EIR/EIS, p 2 2-1 ) 15 16 D No Project Alternative 17 1 Description 18 With the No Project Alternative, land use changes and policies that are being 19 contemplated to implement the MSHCP will not occur However, planning 20 currently being conducted under the Riverside County Integrated Project for 21 the General Plan and Countywide circulation element could still be adopted 22 Implementation of the various elements of those plans resulting in Take of 23 listed species and regulated habitats will need to be permitted separately 24 under the applicable State and federal processes (EIR/EIS, p ES -6 ) 25 26 2 Finding 27 28 R•/cU5\MKS''6523 0 55 87 1 This alternative fails to meet project objectives, would not substantially 2 reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased 3 impacts 4 5 3 Supporting Explanation 6 Under this alternative, the objectives ofthe Project would not be met Under 7 the No Project Alternative the MSHCP would not be approved or 8 implemented Therefore, there would be no process in place to provide Take 9 Authorization or mitigation lands for the transportation, infrastructure, 10 housing and employment base needed to accommodate projected growth in 11 Western Riverside County A criteria -based reserve that would assist in the 12 conservation of Covered Species would not be assembled This alternative 13 will not facilitate growth in Western Riverside County (EIR/EIS, p 4 2-20 ) 14 This alternative does not provide a streamlined approach to development, 15 instead, impacts resulting from development activities would continue to b 16 subject to a variety of local, state and federal regulatory processes 17 (EIR/EIS, p 4 3-6) Habitat would be conserved on an ad hoc basis - if at 18 all - rather than in functional blocks There would be no fee based funding 19 plan that would generate funds necessary to support conservation and the 20 value of existing public and quasi -public resources would not be expanded 21 This alternative was not designated Environmentally Superior to the 22 j MSI ICP (EIR/EIS, p 6 1-6 ) 23 24 Private parties will be required to mitigate biological impacts on a project - 25 by- project basis resulting in inconsistent conservation Conservation of 26 species and habitats provided through mitigation and compensation under the 27 existing regulatory framework will likely result in a pattern of conservation 28 that is fragmented, and managed in a piecemeal fashion (EIR/EIS, p E RVPUB\MKS\652370 56 88 1 6) Under the No Project Alternative, activities involving the Take of State 2 and/or federally listed species will require individual permitting on a prof ect- 3 by -project basis The No Project Alternative will not provide Take 4 Authorization to Existing Agricultural Operations (EIR/EIS, p, ES -6 ) 5 6 This alternative will have a significant and unavoidable impact on Sensitive 7 Natural Vegetation Communities, Listed Covered Species, Non -Listed 8 Covered Species, Non -Covered Species, Cores and Linkages, and the 9 relationship to adopted or approved HCPs and NCCPs (EIRJEIS, Table 10 ES -B ) 11 12 Under the No Project Alternative, there will not be a coordinated system of 13 linkages provided to connect conservation areas, and the ability to provide 14 linkages through project -by -project mitigation may be precluded over time 15 through continued development (EIRIEIS, p ES -6) Edge effects would 16 be exacerbated because of the loss of cores and linkages and increased 17 human interaction with wildlife The ability to provide linkages through 18 project -by -project mitigation may be precluded over time through continued 19 development Additionally, significant impacts to adopted and approved 20 HCPs and NCCPs are anticipated under this alternative, due to the failure to 21 maintain critical linkage components present in other adopted HCPs and 22 NCCPs Therefore, the County finds that the Listed and Proposed Species Z3 Alfernative results in increased impacts, fails to meet project objectives and 24 therefore rejects it (EIR/EIS, p 2 2-1 ) 25 26 E Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative - 27 1 Description 28 R:PUB\MKS\652370 57 89 1 This alternative would focus on the conservation of narrow endemic plan* 2 species 3 4 2 Finding 5 This alternative fails to meet project objectives and would not substantially 6 lessen project impacts 7 8 3 Supporting Explanation 9 The Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative conflicts with Project 10 Objectives Because this alternative covers only 22 species, it does not 11 provide the maximum possible certainty that the Take Authorization will 12 cover additional species that may be listed while the Permits are in effect 13 Also, the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative will not streamline 14 development authorization under FESA and CESA to the maximum exte- 15 practicable Likewise, the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative would 16 not provide assurances that, to the extent legally possible, private parties will 17 not be required to mitigate impacts under FESA and CESA except as 18 required in the Plan (ELR/EIS, p 2 8-2) The Narrow Endemic Plant 19 Species Alternative is also infeasible due to economic considerations since 20 it will not be able to develop a fee based funding plan that would support the 21 conservation area 22 23 This alternative would not reduce or avoid any of the Project's significant 24 environmental impacts Thus, the Narrow Endemic Species Alternative was 25 screened out from further consideration as an alternative to the Plan 26 However, elements from this alternative protecting endemic species were 27 incorporated into the Project, as proposed, as additional survey requiremen' 28 By incorporating these features, the Project takes advantage of the species SVPUB\MKS\5_737O 58 90 1 benefits that would have been provided by the Narrow Endemic Species 2 Alternative Therefore, the County finds that the Narrow Endemic Plant 3 Species Alternative is infeasible and fails to meet project objectives and 4 therefore rejects it (EIRlEIS, p 2 2-1 ) 5 6 F Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative 7 1 Description 8 This alternative seeks to conserve up to 146 species and 218,600 acres of 9 habitat on private lands within the MSHCP Planning Area The number of 10 species to be conserved remains the same as the Project 32 listed and 11 proposed species, and 115 sensitive species 12 13 2 Finding 14 This alternative fails to meet project objectives, does not substantially reduce 15 project impacts and is infeasible 16 17 3 Supporting Explanation 18 The Project as proposed is preferable to the Modified Reserve Configuration 19 Alternative, because this alternative is infeasible, conflicts with Project 20 objectives, and would not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's 21 significant environmental impacts The Modified Reserve Configuration 22 Alternative conflicts with Project Objectives Under the Modified Reserve 23 Configuration Alternative, the number of species to be conserved remains the 24 same and the percentage of Take is very similar but the amount of 25 developable land is reduced (See Appendix B, pp B-5, B-7 ) 26 27 Because the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would conserve the 28 same number of species as the Project but requires the purchase of an RVPUB\Mi<S\652370 59 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 additional 65,400 acres of pnvate lands, it is economically infeasible and it conflicts with the Project Objective requiring that the preferred alternative include a fee -based funding program that will generate sufficient revenue to contribute to the reserve's funding needs This alternative also conflicts with the MSHCP's function to streamline the permitting process while accommodating growth by requlnng the Conservation of significantly more private land (218,000 acres) than the Proposed MSHCP (153,000 acres) This results in the Conservation of an additional 65,000 acres, more than 40% more than the MSHCP Using these additional lands for Conservation could represent the loss of up to 227,500 low -density residential units (See Appendix B, p B-9) Additionally, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would be infeasible because of cost It would take at least a 40% increase in cost to operate and manage the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative, yet, this alternative reduces the amount of land that is subject the Local Development Fee by 65,000 Thus, the Conservation of these additional acres would directly affect the availability of local funds to finance the MSHCP and conflicts with the objective requiring that the preferred alternative include a fee -based funding program that will generate sufficient revenue to contribute to the reserve's funding needs Additionally, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would conflict with project objectives because it would not be economically efficient, and it would not limit the expenditure of public and private funds to the amount necessary to maintain a viable reserve Based on these considerations, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative was screened out from further consideration as an alternative to the proposed Project (EIR/EIS, p 2 8-4 ) RVPU3\N.KS\652370 60 92 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has balanced the 2 benefits of the MSHCP against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects thereof, and has 3 determined that the following benefits outweigh and render acceptable those environmental effects 4 5 A Because the County is one of the largest and fastest growing counties in the United 6 States, the Project is necessary to address local environmental, transportation and 7 land use needs with the goal of anticipating and shaping the pattern of growth within 8 the County to maintain and enhance the quality of life for its residents 9 10 B The Project addresses the potential impacts ofurban growth, natural habitat loss and 11 species endangerment, and creates a plan to reduce the potential loss of Covered 12 Species and their habitats due to the direct and indirect impacts of future 13 development on both private and public lands within the MSHCP Plan Area 14 15 C The Project provides the County and the Cities with the ability to control local land 16 use decisions and maintain economic development flexibility while providing a 17 coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program that will 18 facilitate the preservation of biological diversity, as well as enhancing the region's 19 quality of life 20 21 D The Project will provide for the assembly of an approximately 500,000 acre critena- 22 based MSHCP Conservation Area that will support the habitat and life history 23 requirements of up to 146 Covered Species, while allowing flexibility in the assembly 24 and location of the MSHCP Conservation Area (EIR/EIS, p ES -4 ) 25 26 E The Project will maintain long-term environmental productivity through the assembly 27 and management of a biologically -sound MSHCP Conservation Area (EIR/EIS, p 28 6 1-7 ) RVPUB\MKS\6523'70 61 93 1 F The Project will facilitate the development of necessary infrastructure, future 2 development and improve future economic development in the County by providing 3 an efficient streamlined regulatory process though which development can proceed 4 and by providing local jurisdictions with Take (EIR/EIS, p ES -4, 6 1-5 ) 5 6 G The Project will provide a coordinated and comprehensive framework for the 7 assembly of contiguous parcels of habitat that will provide functional habitat blocks 8 to assist in the conservation of species while expanding the conservation value of 9 existing reserves through the conservation of cores and linkages (EIR/EIS, p 2 1- 10 1) 11 12 H The Project establishes conditions under which the Permittees will receive from the 13 USFWS and the CDFG certain long-term Take Authorizations and other assurances 14 that will allow the taking of Covered Species incidental to the development r 15 transportation, infrastructure, housing and employment needed to accommodate 16 projected growth in Western Riverside County and other lawful uses authorized by 17 the Permittees 18 19 I For the benefit of public and private property owners and other project proponents 20 within the MSHCP boundaries, the Project will transfer Take Authonzation received 21 from the Wildlife Agencies through the land use entitlement process, issuance of 22 Certificate of Inclusion or other appropriate mechanism to the Permittees 23 24 J The Project will provide for permanent open space, community edges, and 25 recreational opportunities, which contribute to maintaining the community character 26 of Western Riverside County (EIR/EIS, p ES -4, 6 1-8 ) 27 28 R'✓PU5\MKS\652370 62 94 1 K The MSHCP will give the County and the Cities the ability to control local land use 2 decisions and maintain economic development flexibility while providing a 3 coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program that will 4 facilitate the preservation of biological diversity, as well as enhancing the region's 5 quality of life 6 7 L Urban quality and design of the built environment would be permanently changed to 8 reflect abetter quality oflife, including permanent open space, community edges, and 9 recreational opportunities 10 11 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has reviewed and 12 considered the EIR/EIS, and all other applicable documents in the record, in evaluating the Project, 13 that the EIR/EIS is an accurate and objective statement that complies with the California 14 Environmental Quality Act and reflects the County's independent judgment, and that the EIR/EIS 15 is incorporated herein by this reference 16 17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors the documents and other 18 materials that constitute the record of proceedings/administrative record for the County's approval 19 of the Project are located at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, and the custodian of these records is the 20 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 21 22 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it hereby CERTIFIES 23 the EIR/EIS, adopts the MSHCP and authorizes the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to enter into 24 the Implementing Agreement 25. 26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that staff shall file a Notice 27 ofDetermination with the County ofRiverside within five (5) working days of final Project approval 28 RVPUB\MKS\6S23 0 63 95 1 11 Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County ofRiverside this 17th day ofJune, 2003 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ROLL CALL Ayes. Buster, Tavaglione, Venable, Wilson and Ashley Noes None Absent None Tho ;arego,n j i €Fed to be a true woc ea bv said Boa rate therein set forth 4PROClark of s.k y of a Super ro Deputy RVPUB\MKS\6523i0 64 96 (01 103 [5. .. AGENDA ITEM 6H 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: Update on Exchange of Planning, Programming, and Monitoring Funds with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update regarding the exchange of funds with SCAG. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In December 2001, the Commission approved a request from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to exchange, on a dollar for dollar basis, a portion of the Commission's Planning, Programming, and Monitoring Funds for SCAG FHWA Planning Funds. The purpose of the trade was to provide SCAG a source of non-federal funds to match the TEA 21 Maglev Planning Funds. One of the conditions of the trade was that our funds would be disbursed after we had received funds from SCAG. When this exchange of funds was initially executed, it was our understanding that the transfer of dollars would be completed in FY 2001-02. We had sufficient State Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) Funds identified for CETAP to complete the transfer at that time. Unfortunately, the necessary funding for the transfer was inadvertently left out of SCAG's FY 2001-02 budget. SCAG's FY 2002-03 budget included only partial funding and we were able to exchange $162,543 with an additional $67,490 from FY 2002-03 currently in the process of being exchanged. It was SCAG's desire to include the outstanding balance of $175,967 in their FY 2003-04 budget. We have reviewed our financial records for the CETAP program and determined that we will not be able to complete the exchange of funds outlined in Agreement No. 02-65-061. Due to the current State budget crisis, we were denied additional programming of PPM funding for CETAP in the 2003-04 fiscal year. At the beginning of FY 2003-04 we had outstanding payments due to the County in Agenda Item 6H 97 excess of $1.3 million and expenses are incurred daily. We recently paid the County for a portion of the outstanding bills and hope to receive discretionary funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Environmental Streamlining program to pay future County bills; to date, the County Board of Supervisors have agreed to advance funding for these expenses. Due to the delays in funding exchanges and our current cash flow situation, we do not see an opportunity to complete the exchange of the remaining $175,967 with SCAG. Agenda Item 6H 98 AGENDA ITEM 61 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorize Additional Contingency for Agreement No. 02-31-056, for the Realignment and Widening of State Route 74, Segment 1, from Dexter Avenue to 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize additional contingency, in the amount of $249,354, from $538,546 to $787,900, to cover additional costs associated with Agreement No. 02-31-056 with Riverside Construction, for the realignment and widening of State Route 74, Segment 1, from Dexter Avenue to 0.5 Km east of Wasson Canyon Road. The base amount will remain at $10,561,454, but the contingency will increase from $538,546 (5.0%) to $787,900 (7.5%), for a total contract amount not to exceed $11,350,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Strategic Plan includes improvements to State Route 74, between 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, a length of approximately 8.5 miles. The proposed improvements include the realignment and widening of the existing two (2) lane roadway to four (4) lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a continuous 14 foot paved median. The project is being designed in two segments. Segment 1 is from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. Segment 11 is from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. At its July 10, 2002 meeting, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 02-31- 056, for the realignment and widening of State Route 74, Segment 1, from Dexter Avenue to 0.5 Km east of Wasson Canyon Road, to Riverside Construction Company Inc., for the amount of $10,561,454 plus an approximate 5% contingency amount of $538,546, to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $11,100,000. Agenda Item 61 99 Construction activities on the SR 74 Segment I Project started in mid -August of 2002 and is currently scheduled to complete construction by the beginning of November of 2003. The project is currently ahead of schedule. During the course of construction, there were several issues that arose that required a greater effort than anticipated. The following table summarizes the issues that arose, the pre -construction estimate, the actual cost, and the projected cost to project completion: Issue Description Pre- Construction Estimate Actual Costs Decrease or Increases from Pre-Const. Est. Contract Change Orders (CCO) Increase in Existing Bid Items $70,000 $70,000 $0 CCO #1 Construction Flagging $20,000 $37,000 $17,000 CCO #2 Remove Rocks and Unsuitable Material $40,000 $95,000 $55,000 CCO #3 Maintain Traffic $50,000 $32,500 ($17,500) CCO #4 Maintain SWPPP $20,000 $20,000 $0 CCO #5 EVMWD Water Line Modifications $0 $160,000 $160,000 CCO #6 Additional Electrical Work $0 $36,000 $36,000 CCO #7 Additional Tree Removal $0 $15,000 $15,000 Adjustments #1 AC QA/QC Bonus $20,000 $60,000 $40,000 $0 #2 AC Compensation Adjustment $225,000 $225,000 #3 Increase/Decrease Quantities $50,000 $5,000 ($4b,00 Supplemental #1 COZE E P $38,400 $28,400 ($10,000) #2 CaII Box Remove & Reinstall $4,000 $4,000 $0 SUB -TOTAL $537,400 $787,900 $250,500 Commission Authorized $538,546 Contingencv Amount Projected Final Costs $787,900 Additional Contingency $249,354 Required Agenda Item 61 100 With this agenda item, staff is requesting that the Commission authorize additional contingency, in the amount of $249,354, from $538,546 to $787,900, to cover additional construction costs, as outlined above, associated with Agreement No. 02-31-056, for the realignment and widening of State Route 74, Segment I, from Dexter Avenue to 0.5 Km east of Wasson Canyon Road. The base amount will remain at $10,561,454, but the contingency will increase from $538,546 (5.0%) to $787,900 (7.5%), for a total contract amount not to exceed $11,350,000. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 03-04 Amount: $249,354 Source of Funds: 2000 Bond Proceeds Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 1222-31-81301 P# 3001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: zx, C = :� Date: 08/25/03 Agenda Item 61 101 AGENDA ITEM 6J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 04-31-013 for the Vegetation Removal Adjacent to State Route 74 Between Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County, and 7th Street, in the City of Perris STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 04-31-013 for the Vegetation Removal adjacent to State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County, and 7th Street, in the City of Perris, to TruGreen LandCare L.L.0 in the amount of $248,446.40, plus an approximate 8% contingency amount of $21,553.60, to cover unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $270,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 28, 2003 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise to receive construction bids for the Vegetation Removal adjacent to State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County, and 7th Street, in the City of Perris. The SR 74 Realignment Project is a Measure "A" Project from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. The project is being constructed in two segments. Segment I is from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to approximately 1,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road. Segment II is from approximately 1,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. Segment I is currently under construction and is on schedule to complete construction by the end October 2003. Segment II will begin construction in the Spring of 2004. Agenda Item 6J 102 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in their Biological Opinion for the project, required that gnatcatcher habitat within the proposed right-of-way be removed outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season (March 15 to September 30) to avoid disruption of its breeding and nesting activities. Vegetation removal will consist of cutting vegetation, including trees, flush with the ground surface. No ground disturbance will occur with this contract. The equipment used will most likely be chain saws and weed -whackers or their equivalent. The project was advertised starting on July 30, 2003 with the bid opening held on August 20, 2003. Four (4) bids were received and opened on August 20, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. A summary of the bids received is shown in Table A: TABLE A Vegetation Removal Adjacent to State Route 74 Between Wasson Canyon Road, In Riverside County, and 7th Street, In The City Of Perris Boulevard Bid Summary Firm Amount Over Low (From Low Bid to High Bid) Bid Amount Bid Engineers Estimate $282,920.00 1 TruGreen LandCare L.L.0 146 E. Railroad Ave. Monrovia, Ca. 91016 $248,446.40 2 United Pacific Services, Inc. 1740 North Hills Drive La Habra, Ca. 90631 $266,160.00 $17,713.60 3 So. Cal. South Bags , Inc. 12620 Bosely Lane Corona Ca. 92883 $286,568.49 $38,122.09 4 Nakae & Associate, Inc. 11159 Jeffrey Road Irvine Ca. 92602 $323,769.00 $75,322.601 _, The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and staff, and all concur that TruGreen LandCare L.L.0 was the lowest bidder whose bid was determined responsive to the . bid documents. Agenda Item 6J 103 A summary of the review of the three (3) lowest bids received and the responsiveness of the bids are detailed in Table B: TABLE B Check List Item TruGreen LandCare Inc. United Pacific Services, Inc. So. Cal. South Bags , Inc. 1 Bid Letter Yes Yes i Yes 2 Schedule of Prices - Bid Amount (math check) - Bid Item Comparison - w/Eng's Est - w/other Bidders - Unbalanced Bid Items Yes Yes Yes See Note: Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 3 Bid Bond Yes Yes No Cashiers Check inliu of Bid Bond 4 List of Subcontractors - Prime Performs >50% Work - Subcontractor DBE - Where Certified - Prime DBE Yes Yes State of Calif. No Yes Yes Caltrans No Yes Yes Caltrans No 5 Bidder Information Forms - Reference Check Yes Yes Yes 6 Safety Record Yes Yes Yes 7 Non -Collusion Affidavit Yes yes yes 8 Equal Opurtunity Certification Yes Yes Yes 9 Debarment Certification Yes Yes Yes 10 Certification for Federal Aid Projects Yes Yes Yes 11 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Yes Yes Yes 12 Evidence of Insurance Yes Yes Yes Note: TruGreen LandCare L.L.0 listed a Unit Price of $1.00 each for Bid Items 1, 2, and 3. TruGreen LandCare L.L.C. stated that the cost for these items is included within the Unit Prices of all other bid items. Agenda Item 6J 104 Table C (attached) summarizes the costs associated with the Vegetation Removal adjacent to SR 74 between Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County, and 7th Street, in the City of Perris, for the three (3) lowest bids received. Based on staff and Legal Counsel's review of the bids received, it is recommended that the Commission award Agreement No. 04-31-013, for the Vegetation Removal adjacent to SR 74 Between Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County, and 7th Street, in the City of Perris, to TruGreen LandCare L.L.C. for the amount of $248,446.40 in addition to authorizing an approximate 8% contingency amount of $21,553.60, to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed contract amount of $ 270,000. The standard RCTC construction contract will be used, contingent upon Legal Counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 03-04 Amount: $270,000 Source of Funds: 2000 Bond Proceeds Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 222-31-81301 P# 3001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ___ Z.1 � > Date: 08/25/03 Attachment: Table C — Cost Summary Associated with the Vegetation Removal Adjacent to State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County, and 7th Street, in the City of Perris Agenda Item 6J 105 TABLE C Vegetation Removal Adjacent to State Route 74 Between Wasson Canyon Road, In Riverside County, and 7th Street, In The City Of Perris Boulevard Bid Summary Engineers Estimate TruGreen LandCare L.L.C. United Pacific Services, Inc. So. Cal. South Bags , Inc. ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL I Progress Schedule Lump Sum 1 $750 00 $750.00 $1.00 $1.00 $5,000 00 $5,000.00 $5,000 00 $5,000.00 2 Construction Area Signs Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 00 $1 00 $1.00 $2,000 00 $2,000 00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3 Traffic Control System Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 II $1 II $1_00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $9,994.69 $9,994.69 $184,769.00 4 Remove Trees EA 793 $250.00 $198,250II 00 $99,125.00 $200 00 $158,600.00 $233 00 5 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 1 M2 3400 $1 50 $5,100.00 $303 $10,302.00 52.00 $6,80000 $1 66 $5,64400 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 2 M2 318 $1.50 II $3.03 $963.54 $2 II $63600 $1 66 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 3 I $679.50 $3 I $1,37259 $2.00 $906.00 $1.66 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 4 I $538.50 I $1,087.77 $2 II $71800 $1 66 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 5 M2 455 $1.50 $682.50 $3 03 $1,378 65 00 $910.00 $1.66 10 Remove Sage Scrub Location 6 M2 2177 $1.50 $3,265 50 $3 03 $6,596.31 $2.00 $4,354 00 $1 66 11 RemoveRiversidean Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 7 M2 1832 $1.50 $2,748.00 $3.03 $5,550.96 II $3,664.00 $1.66 $3,041 12 12 Remove (Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 8 M2 284 $150 $42600 $3 I $860 52 $2 II $568.00 $47144 13 Remove (Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 9 M2 981 $1 50 $1,471.50 03 $2,972.43 $2 II $1,962.00 $1,628.46 14 ,(Remove (Riversidean Sage :Scrub (Location 10 M2 505 $1.50 $757.50 03 $1,530.15 II $1,01000 $838.30 15 (Remove IRiversidean Sage "Scrub (Location 11 M2 819 $150 $1,22850 03 $2,481.57 $2 II 51,638,00 $1,359.54 16 (Remove (Riversidean Sage Scrub (Location 12 M2 608 $1.50 _ $912.00 II $1,216.00 $1.66 $1.00928 17 Remove IRiversidean Sage Scrub Location 13 M2 353 $1.50 $529.50 S3 I $1,069 • $2.00 I $706.00 _ $1.66 $585.98 18 Remove (Riversidean Sage Scrub (Location 14 M2 671 $1.50 $1,006.50 03 $2,033.13 II $1,342.00 $1,113.86 V \USERSIAGENDA\2003109 September\6J Al BFI Table C SR 74 Segment II Vegitation Removal xis 106 TABLE C Vegetation Removal Adjacent to State Route 74 Between Wasson Canyon Road, In Riverside County, and 7th Street, In The City Of Perris Boulevard Bid Summary Engineers Estimate TruGreen LandCare L.L.C. United Pacific Services, Inc. So. Cal. South Bags , Inc. ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 19 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 15 M2 I 547 $1 50 $820.50 $3.03 $1,657.41 $200 + $1,094.00 $1.66 $908.02 20 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 16 M2 487 $1 50 $730.50 $3 03 1 $1,475 61 $2.00 $974.00 $1.66 $808.42 21 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 17 M2 411 $1 50 $616 50 $3 03 $1,245 33 $2 00 $822.00 $1.66 $682.26 22 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 18 M2 1348 $1 50 $2,022.00 $3.03 $4,084.44 $2 00 $2,696.00 $1.66 $2,237 68 23 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub 1 °cation 19 M2 624 $1.50 $936.00 53.03 $1,890.72 $2.00 $1,248.00 $1 66 $1,035.84 24 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 20 M2 1324 $150 $1,98600 $303 $4,011.72 $2.00 $2,648.00 $1.66 $2,197.84 25 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 21 M2 4088 $1 50 $6,132.00 $3.03 $12,386.64 $2.00 $8,176.00 $1.66 $6,786.08 26 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 22 M2 2193 $1.50 $3,289 50 $3 03 $6,644 79 $2 00 $4,386.00 $1.66 $3,640 38 27 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 23 M2 454 $1.50 $681 00 53.03 $1,375.62 $2.00 $908.00 $1 66 $753.64 28 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 24 M2 4100 $1 50 $6,150.00 $3.03 $12,423.00 $2.00 $8,20000 $1 66 $6,80600 29 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 25 M2 405 $1.50 $607.50 $3.03 $1,227 15 $2.00 $81000 $1 66 $672.30 30 31 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 26 M2 587 $1 50 $880,50 $3.03 $1,778.61 $2.00 $1,174.00 $1.66 $974.42 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 27 M2 223 _ $150 $334.50 $3.03 $675.69 $2.00 $446.00 $1 66 $370.18 32 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 28 M2 646 $1.50 $96900 $3.03 $1,957.38 $200 $1,29200 $1.66 $1,07236 33 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 29 M2 369 $1.50 $553 50 $3 03 $1.118 07 $2 00 $738.00 $1 66 $612 54 34 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 30 M2 393 $1.50 $589.50 $3.03 $1,190 79 $2 00 $786.00 $1 66 $652.38 V:\USERS\AGENUAp003\09 September\6J Al BH Table C 5R 7., Segment II Vegilalion Removal xis 107 TABLE C Vegetation Removal Adjacent to State Route 74 Between Wasson Canyon Road, In Riverside County, and 7th Street, In The City Of Perris Boulevard Bid Summary ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT 35 Remove M2 Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 31 36 Remove M2 Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 32 37 38 39 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 33 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 34 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 35 40 Remove Riversidean Sage Scrub Location 36 M2 M2 M2 M2 .1. ESTIMATED QUANTITY 675 6978 386 8609 326 892 Engineers Estimate TruGreen LandCare L.L.C. _ United Pacific Services, Inc. So. Cal. South Bags , Inc. UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 5150 $1,012.50 $3.03 52,045.25 $2.00 $1,35000 $1.66 51,120.50 $1 50 510,46700 $3 03 $21,143.34 $2.00 $13,956.00 $1 66 $11,583.48 $150 $57900 $3.03 51.16958 $2.00 $77200 $1.66 $640.76 $1 50 $12,913.50 $3.03 $26,08527 $2.00 $17,21800 $166 $14,290,94 $1 50 $489 00 $3.03 $987 78 $2.00 $652 00 $1 66 $541 16 $1 50 $1,338.00 $3.03 $2,702.76 $2.00 $1,784.00 $1 66 $1,480.72 Totals 5282,920 00 5248,446 40 $266,160.00 $286,568.49 V:IUSERS1 ;GENDA12003109 Seplemberl6J Al BH Table C SR 74 Segment II Vegilalion Removal zls 108 AGENDA ITEM 6K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorize Additional Contingency for the Relocation of Pacific Bell Line Required for the Reconstruction of the Jackson Street Over Crossing for the State Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize additional contingency, in the amount of $13,060, from $26,940 to $40,000, to cover additional costs associated with the relocation of a Pacific Bell Line, required for the reconstruction of the Jackson Street Over Crossing, for the State Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. The base amount will remain at $123,060, but the contingency will increase from $26,940 to $40,000, for a total not to exceed amount of $163,060; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The State Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project was initially funded 100% by RCTC Measure "A" Funds. In November of 2000, the Commission took action to reprogram $3.345 million of RIP Funds from the SR 74 Project to the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. This RIP funding, along with an additional $16.7 million in Caltrans State Highway Operations and Projection Program (SHOPP) Funds, funded the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project without the need for the originally programmed Measure "A" Funds, with the exception of paying for design, right-of-way, and utility relocation costs. Therefore, at the same November meeting, the Commission reassigned Measure "A" Funds programmed for the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project to the SR 74 Project. In December of 2000, the Commission approved Design Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1132 with Caltrans for the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project, from Tyler Street to Monroe Street, in the City of Riverside. The approved SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project Cooperative Agreement stipulated that the Commission would fund 100% of the costs Agenda Item 6K 109 for Final PS&E Design, Right -of -Way and Utility relocation activities for the project, and Caltrans would fund 100% of the construction costs for the project. All design and right of way activities were completed in the Spring 2001 and in June 2001, Caltrans awarded a Construction Contract for the project, for $16.333 million. The project is currently scheduled to complete construction in September 2003. The Jackson Street Over Crossing was replaced, with a longer bridge, as part of the construction of the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. The replacement of the Jackson Street Over Crossing required that an existing Pacific Bell Line be relocated during construction and reinstalled after the new bridge was constructed. Per the referenced Caltrans Cooperative Agreement, RCTC was responsible for the costs associated with relocating this Pacific Bell Line, which was estimated to be approximately $123,060. This utility relocation work was performed by the utility. In January 2002, the Commission authorized the expenditure of $123,060 plus a contingency of $26,940, for any change orders that may occur, for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000, for the relocation of the Pacific Bell Line located in the Jackson Street Over Crossing. During the course of construction, it was required to have Pacific Bell perform additional work to assure that the Pacific Bell Line was relocated out of the existing Jackson Street Over Crossing to meet the scheduled demolition date for the existing bridge. The cost associated with this additional work is estimated to be approximately $40,000. With this agenda item, staff is requesting an increase in the contingency in the amount of $13,060, from $26,940 to $40,000, to cover additional costs associated with the relocation of a Pacific Bell Line, required for the reconstruction of the Jackson Street Over Crossing, for the SR 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. The base amount will remain at $123,060, but the contingency will increase from $26,940 to $40,000, for a total not to exceed amount of $163,060. i Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 03-04 Amount: $13,060 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Funds Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81301 P# 3602 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ___ Date: 08/25/03 Agenda Item 6K 110 AGENDA ITEM 6L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement No. 04-33-017, Amendment No. 8 to Agreement No. RO-2128, with STV Incorporated for Evaluation and Incorporation of New SCAG Travel Demand Model to Complete New Starts Application for the San Jacinto Branch Line Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-017, Amendment No. 8 to Agreement No. RO-2128, with STV Incorporated for the evaluation and incorporation of the new SCAG travel demand model results to complete the New Starts Application for the San Jacinto Branch Line for an additional base amount of $314,616; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate $314,616 of STA Funds and increase the FY 2003-04 Rail Capital Budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2003-04 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. RO-2128 with STV Incorporated (STV). The scope of work for this contract was to perform preliminary engineering that will result in improvements to the San Jacinto Branch Line for a new commuter connection between Downtown Riverside and the City of Perris. Over the past three years, the Commission has approved a total of seven amendments to STV to provide notices to proceed with various stages of the project development. These initial elements of work will lead to a New Start submittal to the Federal Transit Administration that is required in order to obtain authorization to proceed with preliminary engineering by the winter of 2003. Agenda Item 6L 111 Below is a summary table showing the authorized amounts and descriptions for each amendment approved by the Commission: Date Authorized Description Authorized Amount 1/10/01 Original Agreement - Preliminary Engineering $166,187 2/14/01 Amend. #1 - Additional Aerial Photography and Mapping $40,636 4/11/01 Amend. #2 - Alternative Analysis for use of UPRR RIL $104,170 6/25/01 Amend. #3 - Additional Studies for Completion of New Starts Appl._ $157,730 9/10/01 Amend. #4 - Studies for the Evaluation of Highgrove Connections $76,536 11/14/01 Amend. #5 - Add. Env. Investigations from Riverside to Romoland $254,320 1/31/02 Amend. #6 - Extended Term of Agreement N/A 7/30/02 Amend. #7 - Additional Engineering Design Studies $33,394 new Amend. #8 - New SCAG Travel Demand Model/New Starts Appl $314,616 TOTAL currently authorized $1,147,589 Staff now recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No. 8 for the evaluation and incorporation of the new SCAG travel demand model results to complete the New Starts Application for an additional base amount of $314,616. STV provides, and staff concurs with, the following justification for modifying the New Starts documentation: .. . the new and higher ridership figures from the SCAG new model will have a positive impact on the SJBL project with regard to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Start Program Rating Process. The predicted higher ridership levels will significantly and positively impact the FTA's Transportation System User Benefit Measure, a primary indicator for moving projects forward into Preliminary Engineering. The combination of this improvement measure with an already strong financial plan (the second primary FTA indicator for advancement) will increase the probability of receiving permission from FTA to advance this project to Preliminary Engineering. Although more time and resources will be required to complete the Alternative Analysis and Environmental Assessment due to the changes in ridership forecasting, the SJBL project will likely benefit in the long term from the project development and financial perspective. The proposed Amendment No. 8 will bring the total authorized contract value to $1,147,589 with $68,719 remaining in contingency for a total not to exceed contract value of $1,216,308. Staff will use the standard agreement format, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. Agenda Item 6L 112 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: 1 FY 03-04 Amount: $314,616 Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance (Rail) Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 221-33-81501 P# 3800 Fiscal Procedures Approved: c 75 -. Date: 08/25/03 Attachments: 1) STV's Description of Scope of Work and Cost Breakdown for Amendment No. 8. 2) Study Project Schedule Agenda Item 6L 113 �i STV Incorporated 123 East 9th Street, Suite 103 Upland, California 9 1 7 8 6 (909) 608-1224 tax:(909) 608-7474 August 13, 2003 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Project Coordinator Bechtel Infrastructure Group County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 RE: RCTC San Jacinto Branchline / I-215 Corridor Study STV Job No.: 06-10533 Out -of -Scope Extra Work Through June 30, 2003 and New Work Through December 31, 2003 for Completion of Alternatives Analysis, Environmental Assessment and PE New Start Application (by 11-15-03) Given New Regional Travel Demand Model from SCAG. Dear Mr. Quintero: Attached you will find a request for out -of -scope extra work and a request for new work for the San Jacinto Branchline / I-215 Corridor Study. The explanation for requesting the out-of-scope/new work is provided below, however, I would like to highlight the study teams accomplishments during the course of the San Jacinto Branchline / I-215 Corridor Study: • Completion of the Alternatives Analysis Report (Final Draft). • Completion of the Environmental Assessment (Final Draft). • Completion of Travel Demand Estimates through the Southern California Association of Governments. • Adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative by the RCTC Board. • Completion of Three Public Open House Meetings to Present the Locally Preferred Alternative within the Study Corridor. • Completion of the New Start Application Land Use Volume and Project Description. • Development of a 20 -year Agency -Wide Cash Flow Model for RCTC. • Completion of Conceptual Alignment Drawings for the Locally Preferred Alternative including SJBL parcel overlays. Out -of -Scope Extra Work Please find attached an estimate of cost for extra work in the amount of $68,719.18 for performing Out -of -Scope Extra Work under our ceiling budget of $901,692.00. The request and justification for out -of -scope extra work funds includes the following: 1 114 E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers STV Incorporated Project Management — Project Management includes those activities associated with administrative and managerial tasks from the period of January through June of 2003 due to the extension of the project beyond the original end date of December 31, 2002. This task also includes project manager time for the preparation and conduct of the monthly project review meeting held in person or via conference call. SCAG Coordination — Coordination and management efforts by STV associated with the travel demand analysis conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments for the TSM and Commuter Rail build alternatives. This effort included the identification and development of the exact model runs that would be required from SCAG for the Alternatives Analysis and subsequent New Start Application to Enter PE. STV staff developed a model run table related to FTA requirements in coordination with SCAG personnel that included measures for flexibility where the SCAG model could not provide the proper data sets for the New Start Templates. STV staff also prepared a model run scenario to capture the potential transfers at Riverside Station for access to Orange County via the IEOC Line. The "Ghost Trains" to Irvine were simulated for entry into SCAG's regional travel demand model to test the ridership potential to Orange County. s Public Involvement & Agency Coordination (Round 2) — STV staff prepared presentation materials for three open house public meetings and led/participated in two of these meetings in an effort to publicize the study process and tentative selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative. Presentation materials included the development of 7 - 30"X40" foam core boards that illustrated the study needs, each of the alternatives (TSM and 3 -Build), evaluation process and next steps. The STV project manager presented the boards at the Perris and Riverside open houses (RCTC staff presented at the Moreno Valley open house to avoid unnecessary travel costs). The STV project manager also made presentations to the RCTC Ad -Hoc Committee and the RCTC Board to adopt the Locally Preferred Alternative. • Additional Financial Data Collection, Review and Analysis — Unexpected review and revision of financial documentation was needed to reconcile differences in the reporting of RCTC budget line items from previous years and across various financial documents. Along with analysis of the Rail Program, it was also necessary to capture the extent and scope of all of RCTC sources and uses of capital and operating revenues, including highway projects, local funding disbursements, and other administrative programs. Given the size and complex funding mechanisms on an agency -wide level, much effort was given to clarifying the funding line items for all of these functions as they are not clearly delineated or defined in existing documentation. Once obtained, actual figures were subject to revision during preparation of the cash flow analysis as supporting documentation was discovered/requested and forwarded from RCTC. Finally, additional coordination was needed regarding the cash flow model involving a detailed line item review, and including consultation with the CFO with subsequent revision to reflect more accurate assumptions and agency accepted figures. Conceptual Alignment Drawings - STV staff revised the conceptual plans for the Locally Preferred Alternative prior to the open houses to incorporate a station with 2 115 E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers STV Incorporated parking at the intersection of Spruce Street and the SJBL. This revision was requested by RCTC staff given the sensitivities of residents in Highgrove that requested a station to serve their community. • Final Draft Alternatives Analysis Report - STV staff revised the final draft alternatives analysis report at the request of RCTC to incorporate a station and park and ride lot at the intersection of Spruce Street and the SJBL. This effort was required at the last minute prior to the open house meetings and presentation to the Ad -Hoc Board Committee and included revisions to the evaluation chapter and maps for the definition of alternatives chapter. Environmental Assessment (Myra Frank Associates) — The scope of the environmental assessment changed in two key areas -- biology and cultural resources. First, the county of Riverside has over 300 endangered species that required more than a secondary database review as originally planned. As a result, MFA procured the services of a biological firm (Chambers Group) with direct experience and expertise in Riverside County that reviewed all endangered species in the study corridor. This analysis also included the impacts to the fairy shrimp at the request of RCTC. Second, documentation of cultural resources must be in accordance with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) where the study team encountered unexpected areas of impact. The following items required extra effort: Identification of Assessor Parcel Numbers in Perris as they were not available on-line as for the rest of the corridor; resolution of the issue that the entire railroad alignment was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; identification of the 4th Street Historic District in Perris not originally planned for that required the documentation of properties within this district for submittal to the SHPO; documentation of properties within the 7th Street Historic District which was recently amended by the City of Perris, unbeknownst to the study team at the outset of the project; and, responses to additional questions from the SHPO related to resolving these issues after the submittal of a cultural resource documentation package for his review. Project Management & Miscellaneous (Myra Frank Associates) — Due to the extension of the study from December 31, 2002 through June 2003, MFA attended additional Project Review Meetings and LPA specific meetings with the Ad -Hoc and RCTC Board. MFA also reviewed the station area for potential environmental impacts in the area of the Riverside Industrial Lead (Hunter Park Area). Attached you will find a labor and direct expense cost estimate by task and person (Exhibit 1) with subcontractor expenses for Myra Frank Associates and Katz Okitsu Incorporated. New Work due to New SCAG Travel Demand Model Forecasts As agreed to at our last Project Review Meeting, several tasks and deliverables will be revisited to incorporate the new results from the SCAG model. Please find attached an estimate in the amount of $240,746.67 for performing new work above our original ceiling 3 116 E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers 111 STV Incorporated budget of $901,692.00. The submittal of this request became necessary due to new ridership forecasts from SCAG as per their latest update to the regional travel demand model that provides more favorable patronage results for the San Jacinto Branchline Project. It is important to note that the new and higher ridership figures from the SCAG model will have a positive impact on the SJBL project with regard to the Federal Transit Administration New Start Program Rating process. The predicted higher ridership levels will significantly and positively impact the Federal Transit Administration's Transportation System User Benefit Measure, a primary indicator for moving projects forward into Preliminary Engineering. The combination of this improved measure with an already strong financial plan (the second primary FTA indicator for advancement) will increase the probability of receiving permission from FTA to Advance this project to Preliminary Engineering. Although more time and resources will be required to complete the Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Assessment due to the changes in ridership forecasting, the SJBL project will likely benefit in the long term from a project development and financial perspective. The following tasks have been identified as new work items for final completion of the SJBL AA/EA and New Start PE Application: • Project Management - Project Management includes those activities associated with administrative and managerial tasks from the period of July through December of 2003. This task will include: Project management to guide the revision of tasks and completion of final deliverables for the AA, EA and New Start PE Application. Project manager time for the preparation and conduct of the monthly project review meeting held in person or via conference call when appropriate. SCAG Coordination - Coordination and management efforts by STV associated with the new travel demand analysis conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the TSM and Commuter Rail build alternatives. This effort will include: The identification and development of the exact model runs required from SCAG for the Alternatives Analysis and subsequent New Start Application to Enter PE. STV staff will develop a model run table related to FTA requirements in coordination with SCAG personnel that include measures for flexibility where the SCAG model cannot provide the proper data sets for the New Start Templates. - Preparation of a schedule for SCAG's efforts to ensure that they are held to a specific time period for completion of the travel demand analysis. Review and confirmation of the final data sets from SCAG, and if necessary action to request that SCAG refine or re -submit travel demand data that is suspect or not in the proper format for use in the AA and New Start Application for PE. Development of park and ride constraints in coordination with SCAG to limit the access to the station areas due to limited capacity at each station. This effort will include a review and revision of the zones attached to each station in the SCAG model. 4 117 E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers X STV Incorporated Update to the fare revenue analysis based on a revised fare that includes the area of Romoland and the increase in passengers along the entire alignment. Performance of a fleet capacity analysis to determine the need for additional rolling stock given the large increase in passenger boardings expected from the new SCAG model runs. This will be necessary, because ridership levels are two to three times those experienced in the old version of the SCAG model. • Public Involvement & Agency Coordination (Round 3) — STV staff in coordination with MFA will prepare necessary presentation materials for three open house public meetings to present the results of the EA. Additionally, the STV team will present to the Ad -Hoc Committee and RCTC Board as appropriate upon completion of the EA and revised AA. This effort will include: - Development of presentation materials and the conduct of three open house meetings to present the results of the EA at strategic locations within the study corridor. - It is recommended that the new analysis and results of the AA also be presented at these meetings to solidify the public outreach process for the entire study and to ensure that the public is fully aware of the changes to the locally preferred alternative. - Presentation of the final results of the EA and AA to the Stakeholder Committee, Ad - Hoc Committee and the RCTC Board as appropriate. Coordination with the RTA regarding changes in bus feeder networks. Coordination and meetings with the BNSF/UP Railroads at least once during the course of the remaining study period (to the greatest extent possible, coordinate with Project Review Meetings). New Start Application — New Start Application activities completed to date will be revised due to the new riderhsip figures from the SCAG regional travel demand model, the resulting new boardings at each station and the extension of the SJBL alternatives to Romoland. This effort will include: Revision of the Land Use Volume to include the new station and park and ride facility at Romoland. Revision of the financial plan to incorporate the new capital and operating costs of the revised Locally Preferred Alternative. Although order of magnitude increases are not expected, the capital costs of the alternatives will increase due to the extension of service to Romoland and the need for larger park and ride lots. Operating and maintenance costs will also increase due to the extended length of each alternatives alignment. Revision and completion of the quantitative measures including transportation system user benefits, low income households, employment, emissions, energy consumption, operating cost/passenger mile, hours of transportation system user benefit and cost effectiveness (old measure). - Development of a revised Project Description template that includes Romoland and increased park and ride areas. 5 118 E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers STV Incorporated Preparation of the draft New Start Application for unofficial submittal to the FTA for their initial review to avoid any fatal flaws in the official submittal. - Incorporation of FTA comments into the application in development of the final application for entry into PE. • Maps and Conceptual Alignment Drawings — STV staff will revise the alternative analysis GIS maps and conceptual drawing plans for the Locally Preferred Alternative. This effort will include: - Revision of colored GIS maps for the TSM and Commuter Rail Build alternatives for inclusion into the revised Alternatives Analysis Report and the Environmental Assessment. Revision of the Conceptual Alignment Drawings to include the Romoland station and the expanded park and ride facilities at several of the already proposed station areas. • Final Alternatives Analysis Report (including cost updates) - STV will revise the already completed final draft alternatives analysis report with the necessary new information resulting from the changes in travel demand estimates from SCAG. This effort will include: Updates to the capital cost and operating cost estimates for the TSM and Build alternatives due to the increased length of alignment, new station and increased parking capacities at most stations. The cost chapter will be revised accordingly. - Revisions to the riderhship forecasting methodology, service planning assumptions and patronage forecast results. The ridership chapter will be revised accordingly. Revisions to the evaluation of alternatives chapter including the evaluation matrix and the detailed explanations for each of the alternatives considered. - Preparation of a draft and final Alternatives Analysis report for review by RCTC and submittal to the Ad -hoc Committee and RCTC Board of Directors. ■ Environmental Assessment (Myra Frank Associates) — The environmental assessment will be revised to reflect the changes caused by the new SCAG travel demand estimates. This effort will include: Project management including the attendance at project review meetings and other presentations (e.g. Ad -Hoc Committee and RCTC Board). Revisions to each of the environmental impact categories (e.g. air quality, floodplains, traffic impacts, noise and vibration, hazardous materials, endangered species, wetlands, land use) that are affected by the new station in Romoland and the increased size of the park and ride facilities at each station. This effort will include revisions to the mitigations associated with any of the new impacts identified from the above analysis. Revision of traffic impacts at each of the previously proposed stations due to the significantly increased ridership levels. This analysis will also examine the impacts at the new Romoland Station with its significant park and ride facility. Katz Okitsu will perform this analysis under the direct supervision of MFA. 6 119 E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers STV Incorporated Conduct of a Hot Spot analysis for all stations containing over 500 parking spaces. This will be necessary for all stations due to the significantly increased ridership levels as per the SCAG model. (This was not necessary in the previous analysis). - Preparation and conduct of three public open house meetings to present the final results of the EA and to ensure that the public outreach component of the EA cannot be questioned at a later date by resource agencies and FTA. Revisions to the already completed final draft EA including the executive summary, the purpose and need, alternative definitions and environmental impacts/mitigations. This effort will include all comments received from RCTC and any other resource agencies as appropriate prior to final advertisement to the general public. Travel Demand Analysis Contingency — This category provides resources to conduct travel demand analysis in the event that SCAG cannot complete their assigned tasks in a timely manner. RCTC will have the right to direct STV staff to authorize the amount of this effort and the assignment of the effort to Katz Okitsu or another modeling firm to be named. Every effort will be made to ensure that SCAG meets its deliverable dates for the current assignments of travel demand analysis as this is in the best interest of the project and this specific task. If these efforts are not successful, the STV team, at the direction of RCTC, will mobilize Katz Okitsu or another qualified firm to provide technical assistance to SCAG to complete specific tasks in an effort to complete the travel demand analysis to support the completion of the FTA New Start Application by Mid -November, 2003. • General Engineering — At the request of RCTC, we have developed this general category to conduct additional engineering and planning analysis that are not directly related to the specific tasks of the revision to the Alternatives Analysis, Environmental Assessment and New Start Application. The assignment of these efforts will be at the full discretion of RCTC (please note that the loaded labor amount for this category is estimated at approximately $50k). This effort may include: - Analysis of impacts to the San Jacinto Branchline right-of-way from third parties such as Caltrans, March Air Base, BNSF, Union Pacific or other public/private entities. Analysis of general property issues along the right-of-way as specified by RCTC - Other requests as directed by RCTC that are related to the SJBL and the eventual implementation of commuter rail service from Romoland to Riverside and Los Angeles Union Station. Attached you will find a labor and direct expense cost estimate by task and person (Exhibit 2) with subcontractor expenses for Myra Frank Associates and Katz Okitsu Incorporated. 7 120 E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n M anagers STV Incorporated If you have any questions or comments related to the extra work items above or the attached cost estimate, please call me at 215-832-3525 or 267-254-7111 (Cell). Thank you. Sincerely, Richard M. Amodei Associate Attachments: Cost Estimate Worksheets (Exhibits 1 and 2) File: RCTC San Jacinto Branchline Cc: D. Borger J. Bell B. Cardenas M. Gagliardi 8 121 E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P I a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers Exhibit 1 Extra Work Request for San Jacinto Branchline Project Labor and Direct Expenses Amodei Semmler Furgerson Lepri TOTAL TASK NO. DESCRIPTION (Proj. Mgr.) (Planner) (Planner) (Engineer) HRS Task 1 Project Management January through June of 2003 (Extension of Project) 56 56 0 Subtotal Task 1 56 0 0 0 56 Task 2 SCAG Coordination Prepare Model Run Scope for SCAG 4 16 20 Management and Coordination of SCAG 8 16 24 Irvine Analysis - Ghost Runs 16 16 Subtotal Task 2 12 48 0 0 60 Task 3 Public Involvement (Round 2 Meetings) Prepare Presentation Materials Round 2 4 18 16 38' Conduct 2 Public Meetings 4 8 12 Present to the Ad -Hoc and RCTC Board 14 14' Subtotal Task 3 22 18 24 0 _ 64 Task 4 Additional Financial Data Collection, Review and Analysis Extensive Review of RCTC Financial Documents 16 48 64 Coordination Meetings with RCTC Financial Staff 8 8 16 Preparation of Detailed Cash Flow Model 8 48 56 0 Subtotal Task 4 32 0 104 0 136 Task 5 Conceptual Alignment Drawings Revise LPA Alignment (Spruce Street Station) 8 13 21 0 Subtotal Task 5 0 8 0 13 21 Task 6 Final Report Update Evaluation of Alternatives to Include IOS 9 16 25 (Initial Operating Segment through BNSF Mainline) 0 0 Subtotal Task 6 0 9 16 0 25 CAL HOURS 122 83 144 13 341 HOURLY RATE $52.13 $31.25 $25.50 $27.40 DIRECT LABOR $6,359 86 $2,593 75 53,672.00 $356.20 $12,981.81 OVERHEAD @ 119 % $15,448.35 TOTAL LABOR COST $28.430.16 Travel & Other Costs Amodei (PDT Meetings & LPA Presentation) $3,817 37 Furgerson (Public Meetings & Financial Plan) $1,092 03 Other Costs Reproduction (Included in travel expenses for Open House Boards) Subcontractor Myra Frank Associates $28,438.76 Biology Analysis $ 11,897 Cultural Resources: Assessor Parcel Numbers, Railroad Alignment, 4th &7th Street Districts $ 6,443 Additonal Questions by the SHPO $ 5,003 Additonal Project Management (meetings) $ 5,096 Katz Okitsu Incorporated $3,150.00 Application of Roadway Assignments Not Provided By SCAG Model $ 3,150 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $36.498.16 FEE ON SUBS 3% $947.66 PROFIT @ 10% $2,843.02 TOTAL COST FOR EXTRA WORK $68,719 00 122 Exhibit 2 New Work for San Jacinto Branchline Project Completion Through December 31, 2003 Labor and Direct Expenses Amodei Bell Semmler Trembath Furgerson Craft Lepri Ashoff Svadlenka TOTAL TASK DESCRIPTION (Prot. Mgr.) (Pr 1. Mgr.) (Ene/Plan) (Eng/Plan) )Planner) Engineer Engineer Technician (Planner) HRS Task 1 Project Management Project Management 96 96 EA Management 24 24 Engineering Management 24 24 Subtotal Hours 120, 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144• Task 2 !SCAG Riderhship Coordination Management and Coordination of SCAG 16 16 32 Park and Ride Constraint Analysis 4, 12 16 Review and Confirmation of Final Results 8 32 16 56 Fare Revenue Update Based on New Ridership 4 16 8 28 Fleet Capacity Analysis 4 24 8 36 Subtotal Hours _ _ 36 0 100 32 0 0 0 0 0 168 Task 3 Public Involvement & Agency Coordination Prepare Presentation Materials 8 16 16 40 Conduct 3 Public Meetings for EA/AA 24 24 48 Coordination with Railroads 16 20 36 RCTC Ad -Hoc & Board Presentations 24 8 12 44 Subtotal Hours 72 28 0 16 52 0 0 0 0 168 Task 4 New Start Application _ Revise Land Use Volume (Romoland & Park and Rides) 101 16 32 Revise Financial Plan (Cash Flow and Drawdowns) 8, 24 32 Revise Quantitative Measures 8 24 8 24 64 Prepare Draft Application for FTA 81 32 64 104 Incorporate FTA Comments and Final Draft to FTA 88 32 48 Subtotal Hours 48 0 64 0 144 0 0 0 24 280 Task 5 'Conceptual Engineering Revise Alignment with Romoland Station 4 4 16 8 32 Revise Park and Ride Footprint Areas 4 16 40 16 76 Prepare Revised Alignment Drawings 4 16 8 28 Subtotal Hours 0 12 20 0' 0 0 72 32 0 136 Task 6 (Final AA Report Update Capital and O&M Costs e 8 Update Riaersnip Figures 8 8 Update Evaluation of Alternatives 8 8 16 P Prepare Final Report Version 2 8 24 32 ubtotal Hours 16 0 8 8 32 0 0 Total Hours for AATEA and New Start Application Total Cps for AAIEA and New Start Application 'Task 7 292 516 363 68 64 55 077 12 192 56,410 56 ,General Engineering Analysis (As Needed) SJBL ROW Impacts Property Issues Miscellaneous Issues (to be determined) 81 8 8 40 37 24 32 32 Total Hours for General Engineering and Planning Tasks TOTAL HOURS HOURLY RATE DIRECT LABOR 24 101 316, 165 56. 51,233.12 56.219.84 228 0 $0.00 48 48 32 0 0 128' 256 56 228 128 556.04 579 33 7.708:64 513,089.45 72 52.051 71 522 02 $27 28 $55 99 $28 50 1 32 5560 77 0 $17, 52 $560.77 5737.86 $60.061.80 $71,473 54 $131.535 35 $737.86 538.682 66 160 125 128 0 413 'OVERHEAC@ 119% TOTAL LABOR COST Travel & Other Costs Amodei (6 trips) Furgerson (2 Trips) -Other Costs Miscellaneous Subcontractor Myra Frank Associates Project Management, Document Revisions, Public Meetings, Finalization of EA Katz Okitsu Incorporated Traffic Impact Analysis for New Passenger Levels and New Romoland Station Travel Demand Analysis Contingency (Only at RCTC's Approval for amounts and assignment of contractor) TOTAL DIRECT COSTS FEE ON SUBS PROFIT @ 57,20000 $2,000 00 $500 $31,343.00 $12,500.00 545,000 00 3% 10% 598.542, 50 $2,665 29 513,153 53 Subtotal Tasks 1 - 6 including subcontractor tasks Subtotal Task 7 tor RCTC discretionary task TOTAL COST FOR EXTRA WORK $19d 3d6, 13 $51.550.54 $245.896 67 Exhibit 2 New Work for San Jacinto Branchline Project Completion Through December 31, 2003 Labor and Direct Expenses l Amodei Bell semmler Trembath Furgerson Craft Lepri Ashoft SvadTenka TOTAL TASK DESCRIPTION (Proj.Mgr,) (Proj. Mgr.) (Eng/Plan) (Eng/Plan) (Planner) Engineer Engineer Technician (Planner) HRS Task 1 Project Management Project Management 96 se EA Management 24 24 Engineering Management 24 24 Subtotal IHours 120 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 Task 2 ISCAG Riderhship Coordination Management and Coordination of SCAG 16 16 1 32 Park and Ride Constraint Analysis 4 12 18 Review and Comfirmation of Final Results 8 32 16 56 Fare Revenue Update Based on New Ridership 4 16 8 28 Fleet Capacity Analysis 4 24 8 35 Subtotal IHours 36 0 100 32 0 0 0 0 0 168 Task 3 (Public Involvement & Agency Coordination Prepare Presentation Materials 8 16 16 40 Conduct 3 Public Meetings for EA/AA 24 24 48 Coordination with Railroads 16 20 36 RCTC Ad -Hoc & Board Presentations 24 8 12 44 Subtotal Hours 72 28 0 16 52 0 0, 0 0 168 Task 4 New Start Application Revise Land Use Volume (Romoland & Park and Rides) 16 16 32 Revise Financial Plan (Cash Flow and Drawdowns) 8 24 32 Revise Quantitative Measures 8 24 8 24 64 Prepare Draft Application for FTA 8 32 64 104 Incorporate FTA Comments and Final Draft to FTA 8 8 32 48 Subtotal Hours 48 0 64 0 144 0 0 0 24 280 Task 5 Conceptual Engineering Revise Alignment with Romoland Station 4 4 16 8 32 Revise Park and Ride Footprint Areas 4 16 40 16 76 Prepare Revised Alignment Drawings 4 16 8 28 Subtotal Hours 0 12 _ _ 20 0 0 0 72 32 0 136 Task 6 Final AA Report Update Capital and O&M Costs 8 8 Update Ridership Figures 8 8 Update Evaluation of Alternatives 8 8 16 Prepare Final Report Version 2 8 24 32 Subtotal Hours 16 0 8 8 32 0 0 0 0 64 Tt rs for AAlEA and New Start Application 292 64 192 56 220 0 72 32 24 960 Task 7 'General Engineering Analysis (As Needed) SJBL ROW Impacts 8 40 32 48 32 160 Property Issues 8: 37 48 32 125 Miscellaneous Issues Ito be determined) 8 24 32 32 32 128 Total Hours Ior General Engineering and Planning Tasks 24. 101' 64 0 0 128 96. 0 0 413 _ TOTAL HOURS 1 316 165. 256 56 228 128 168 32 24 1,373 HOURLY RATE $56,04 $79.33 $33.43 $22 02 $27 28 555.99 $28.50 517.52 530..74 DIRECT LABOR $17/708.64 $13,089,.45 58,558,08 '51-233.12 $6,210.841 57.166.721 $4.787 331 $560 77 $737 86 _ $60,061.80 OVERHEAL@ 119% $71,473.54 TOTAL LABOR COST S131,535.35 Travel & Other Costs Amodei (6 trips) $7,200.00 Furgerson (2 Trips) $2,000,00 Other Costs Miscellaneous $500 Subcontractor Myra Frank Associates Project Management, Document Revisions, Public Meetings, Finalization of EA 1 $31,343 00 Katz Okitsu Incorporated Traffic Impact Analysis for New Passenger Levels and New Romoland Station 512,500,00 Travel Demand Analysis Contingency (Only at RCTC's Approval for amounts and assignment of contractor) $45,000.00 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $98542.50, FEE ON SUBS 3% $2,665.29 PROFIT @ 10% _ . $13,153.53 Subtotal Tasks 1 -6 including subcontractor tasks 5194,340.13 Subtotal Task 7 for RCTC discretionary task 551,550.54 TOTAL COST FOR EXTRA WORK $245,896.67 San Jacinto Branchline /1-215 Corridor Study Project Schedule - Extended Alternatives Analysis & Environmental Assessment Through December 31, 2003 ID Name Start Finish Jul '03 1 Aug '03 J Sep '03 Oct 03 Nov '03 j Dec '03 � 1 —1 TTask Alternatives Analysis Project Management SCAG Ridership Coordination Public Involvement & Agency Coordination New Start Application Incorporate FTA Comments Conceptual Engineering Final M Report Environmental Assessment Revise EA Impact Categories Prepare Revised Final Report Public Meetings Engineeri ng Analysis o Tasks as Directed by RCTC Tue 711703 Wed 12/31/03 Tue 7/1/03 Wed 12/31/03 Mon 8/11/03 Fri 10/17/03 Tue 7/1/03 Wed 12/31/03 Fri 8/15/03 Fri 11/14/03 Mon 11/17/03 Wed 12/31/03 Mon 8/18/03 Fn 9/26/03 Mon 9/22/03 Fri 10/31/03 Mon 8/18/03 Fri 11/7/03 Mon 8/18/03 Fri 10/31/03 Wed 10/1/03 Fri 10/24/03 Mon 11/3/03 Fri 11/7/03 Fri 8/1/03 Wed 12/31/03 Fri 8/1/03 Wed 12/31/03 2 - 3 _ 4 - 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 i 11 12 1 13 1 ' 14 L " Project RCTCAA-EASchedulerevised Date Tue 8/26/03 Task Pro gress Milestone Summary III Rolled Up Task Extemal Tasks Rolled Up • Rolled Up 11P.11.1 Split Milestone O Project Summary Group By Summary Progress Page 1 125 AGENDA ITEM 6M RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement No. 04-31-019, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 03-31-014, with Gordon H. Chong & Partners for Additional Studies Related to Master Parking Structure Design of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 04-31-019, Amendment No.1 to Agreement No. 03-31-014, with Gordon H. Chong & Partners for the additional studies to support two additional parking structures at the North Main Corona Metrolink Station for an amount of $77,390 for a new contract authorized amount of $394,188 and a new not to exceed amount of $477,390. The existing unused extra work amount of $83,202 shall remain available to the contract; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its September 11, 2002, the Commission approved an agreement with Gordon H. Chong & Partners to prepare preliminary plans for a 1,000 stall parking structure at the North Main Corona Metrolink Station. The need for the parking structure in the near future is apparent from the fact that the current station parking is already full and a significant number of vehicles are currently parking on the street. Demand for parking at this station will continue to be driven upward by the nature of the unique location of the station adjacent to both the 1-15 and SR 91 freeways, and the increasing congestion on these freeways. Furthermore, over the next 10 years, Metrolink ridership is projected to grow 40% system wide, with 1 10% growth on the two lines that directly serve Riverside County today, the Riverside and IEOC. Agenda Item 6M 126 Staff had previously submitted an application for $11 million, in the 2002 Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), to construct a 1,000 space parking structure at the proposed North Main Corona Metrolink station. The application was forwarded to Caltrans and was included in the California Transportation Commission's (CTC's) adopted 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The first $500,000 of the $11 million funding for the project was obligated to complete the conceptual design & environmental clearance for the project. After initial consultation with the City of Corona and consultants representing Gordon H. Chong & Partners, it became obvious that the initial planning effort needed to encompass a larger initial planning activity after which the plan to construct the proposed parking structure could continue as soon as the state funding could be made available. The additional planning suggested by the City of Corona, and concurred with by staff, was to plan for the eventual maximization of the parking at the Station using the existing surface parking area. With this plan, the initial parking structure would double the current parking capacity from 617 surface parking spaces to 1,265 spaces (surface + structure). Since the current parking lot is essentially full at this time, the first phase of the parking garage is needed now. A second phase expansion of the parking structure would net another 490 spaces and a final phase would net another 816 spaces. The results of constructing all three parking structure phases will provide a total capacity of 2,571 spaces at the site at which time it will be built out using the existing property available to the station. If we assume a future annual growth rate for parking demand of 4%, which is consistent with the overall Metrolink growth rate, the first phase of the parking expansion will satisfy parking demand until the year 2020. However, if we assume the annual growth rate for parking demand at this station increases to about 8%, then we will need all three phases completed by 2020 in order to satisfy demand. Note that this line is currently forecast to grow at an average rate of about 11%. The additional consultant services required to develop the master plan for all phases of the parking structure expansion will require an additional $77,390. This will increase the authorized amount for the contract to $394,188 and the not to exceed amount of the contract to $477,390. The previous extra work amount of $83,202 will remain unused at this time. Agenda Item 6M 127 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 03-04 Amount: $77,390 Source of Funds: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 221-33-81101 P# 3808 Fiscal Procedures Approved: <_ .S= Date: 08/25/03 Attachment: Gordon Chong letter dated April 8, 2003 (Revised May 30, 2003) Agenda Item 6M 128 05/30/2003 16 40 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS 0 002 April 8, 2003 ----Revised May 30 2003 Mr William R Hughes, P E Bechtel Measure "A" Project Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3'4 Floor Riverside, CA 9 ?501 Re New Parking Structure North Main Corona Metrolink Station RCTC Agreement No 03-31-014 Dear Bill, GORDON H CHONG & Partners File No 02066 00 Per our recent discussions and meetings in March with the RCTC and the City of Corona, we understand that the Concept Design phase of the project will now consider full build -out of the existing parking site The initial project was for a 1000 car parking structure on the East portion of the exisung parlung lot which serves the Metrolink Station Due to anticipated growth in Metrolink ridership, it is now RCTC's desire to plan a phased parking structure project over the entire site that will ultimately yield approximately 2500 cars on six levels At our March rneeung, we presented a conceptual plan for how this phased project could be accomplished We understand that the RCTC desires to obtain project approvals from the City of Corona that will encompass the final build -out such that only building permit approvals for construcuon would be required m the future for each project phase The project approvals required d include the same as those currently in same ed in our services for the initial 1000 car structure Development Plan Review, Precise Plan Review, Planning Commission approval, City Council approval and Environmental Assessment In addition, a variance application will be required to allow for a six level structure with a 15 ft setback off Blaine Street Copies of documents that describe these approval proces'.es are attached The scope of co nceprual planning and design for the total project includes a larger and more complex system of vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation as well as architectural development in accordance with the City of Corona's expectations A list of the City's criteria is attached Additional services anticipated include additional parking Functional planning, architectural dessign, traffic analysis and cost estimating It is assumed that the environmental services will remain unchanged, 1 e the City of Corona will prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project based upon traffic, noise, and air quality studies only The Hallldle Building 130 Sutter Street Suite 300 San Francisco CA 94104 4012 tel 415 433 0120 fax 415 433 4368 1 29 KWIUNI\02066-00 Riverside Canty Trans Comm,ssgn\01Client\1-02owner\BdUM,ghes040803LTR (rev) -doe 05/30/2003 16 40 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS 0 003 Revised May30, 2003 Page 2 For the additional services described above we propose an additional fee in the amount of $77,390 00 including reimbursable expenses A breakdown of the additional fees, by discipline is as follows: Architectural $40,240 00 Parking Functional/Structural $20,650 00 Traffic F ngineering $8,000 00 Cost — Estimating $8,500 00 Total $77,390 00 Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have We look forward to continuing our'ork with you on rhis exciting proposal Sincerely, GORDON H CHONG & Partners Attachments 7 Adams, ALA Asso late Partner N \MUNI\0206640 Riverside County 7(a3slQwnmrsswn\O1Chart\102owner\BIUHughes040903LTR (rev) doc 04/08/2003 15 49 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS I¢J 004 Riverside Corona Metrolink Parking Facilities Estimated Space Counts By Phase Surface - West Lot Surface - East Lot Structured - East Side Structured - West Side Total Added Spaces/Phase Walker F'arking Consultants Existing 241 376 0 0 617 131 Phase Phase 1 241 172 852 0 1,265 648 Phase 2 241 82 1,432 0 1,755 490 Phase 3 69 82 1,432 988 2,571 816 r 04/08/2003 15 49 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS 141 005 City of Corona Design Review and Approvals a Development Plan Review • GHCP will meet with City of Corona Planning Departmi nt staff to review preliminary concepr design alternatives • The Concept Design documents for the preferred ahem= ve will be submitted to the City together with other required drawings ( per Section B, City of Corona Development Plan Review Application Form) • GHCP will meet with the City to review its comments on the DPR submittal b Precise Plan Review The Development Plan with she incorporation of staff comments from the DPR will be submitted for further staff review A meeting will be held berwcen GHCP and the Planning Sraffto review their comments and necessary revisions c Planning Commission GHCP will submit to Planning and present to the Commission, the selected alternative with incorporation of comments from our client and Planning Staff d City Council GHCP will present the final design concept for approval by the Corona City Council e Five necruigs with the City are included in this phase, three staff level reviews plus two fornial presentations Environmental Assessment The City of Corona will prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the P. The Corona Main Station project was granted a Categorical Exclusion (NEI environmental impact having been addressed in the E!R for the North Main is therefore p •esusned that a CE will be granted for the Parking Structure The primary environmental issue remaining for the proposed Parking Strucr potential additional traffic impacts The scope of environrnenr:il services w_I impact Analysis prepared by our sub -consultant Katz, Dlcitsu & Associates Consultant, Myra Frank and Associates, will prepare the Categorical Exdusit Structure Their documentation for the CE will include the Traffic Study as Quality Studies oJect 'A) based upon its Street Specific Plan It ire is to analyze include a Traffic Our Environmental n for the Parking well as Noise and Air 04/08/2003 15 50 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS 10 006 Development Plan Review Application Pane 4 The following are tha processing fees for the vanous types of DPR applications a IndustrraIIAllOthers $1,990 b Extension of Time $ 630 c Commercial/Precise Plans $2,250 d Residential piojects over 4 units $2,250 plus $10/du d Specific Plan Full Cost" e Specific Plan Amendment (Major) Full Cost" f Specific Plan Amendment (Minor) $3,130 g Parcel Map $2,120 h Tentative Tract Map $3,155 plus $10/lot SECTION A: THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PER CMC SECTION 17.102.020. A. Conceptual development plans B Municipal reorgan zations and annexations C Specific Plans and Specific Plan Amendments O Tentative Tract Mips E Parcel Maps F All attached and multi -family housing G Precise Plans or Architectural Review H Condrtional Use Permit applications where new buildings or substantial alteratio is are proposed 1 Conversion of residential structures to commercial or rndustnal uses consistent ,+vith the zoning for the property J New commercial and industrial buildings al or exceeding six hundred and fifty (E 50) square feet in floor area K Budding additions .3t or exceeding (2,000) square feet in floor area associated wit h an existing industrial or commercial use L Site plans and architecture for residential units in all subdivisions of five (5) lots ,)r greater M Establishment of a use on a vacant or undeveloped property, which does not include a building pursuant to section 17 102 020 (I) Examples of such uses would include, but are not limited to par king lots, storage yards, recreational facilities, and other permanent or temporary uses as determined by the Plannincl Director SECTION B' ALL PLANS SHALL BE DRAWN AT AN EASILY READABLE SCALE ALL PLANS SUBMITTED SHOULD BE FOLDED TO A MAXIMUM OF 8" X 14" WITH THE TITLE BLOCK VISIBLE ALL SITE PLANS SHALL INCLUDE: 1 • Name, address and telephcrc -_-5er of owner and developer of subjec t property 2 ✓ Name, address and telephone number of person prepanng plan 3 • North arrow 4 Y Scale 5 v , Vicinity map showing site location , 6 •r Property lines of entire legal parcel(s) 7 ,- Names of adjacent streets and intersections 8 Width of adjacent streets and alleys and distance to centerline 9 Legal description of subject property 10 Street address of subject property (if assigned) 11 r- Zoning designation of subject property and surrounding properties 12 L.- Existing land uses of surrounding properties 13 ►- Area of subject property 14 Topograph c contour lines 15 i- Building setback lines for front, sides and rear of each lot per the zoning of the site 16 6-- Conceptual grading plans and cross -sections 17 6- Architectural perspectives or renderings 18 ►- Landscape plans 19 t---- Building Plans 20 Archaeological survey 21 Biological survey 22 ✓ Traffic Study 23 Drainage study 133 24 / Norse stud) 'fig Mater -talc R.1ard 04/08/2003 15.50 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CIIONG & PARTNERS 1 007 Development Plan Review Application Page 5 26 Soils report 27 Geotechn+cal report fitCory 28 Photos of site and surrounding areas 29 ,„-- Proposed plotting of buildings 30 • Street or alley dedications, if applicable 31. -All existing and proposed public improvements within adjacent street_ and alley right-of-way (curb, gutter. streetlight;3, sidewalks, parkways, power poles, fete hydrants, water and .ewerlines, etc.) Show existing curb. gutter and sidewalk with dashed lines and label Show new curb, gutter and sidewalk with solid lines 32 Existing or proposed public rights -of -way within subject property 33 Existing of proposed easements within or immediately outside subject property (public and private) 34 Location cf on -site and off -site drainage facilities 35 Area of each parcel (gross and net) 36 Physical filatures on property lines and immediately adjacent to property lines (fences, walls, power poles, buildings, slopes, etc ) 37 Location of all buildings (main and accessory), fences and walls, paved areas and landscaped areas labeled existing or proposed 38 Percentage of area covered by buildings on each parcel 39 Location of existing and proposed on -site waterlines, sewerlines or septi ; tanks and fire hydrants. 40 Type of construction per Uniform Building Code 41 Height of all buildings and structures 42 Dimension from budding(s) to orenerly line and to other buildings on subject property 43 Uses of all buildings (existing ano proposed) on subject property 44 Exterior elevations indicating exterior building materials, colors, bullding height and including matenais of proposed fences and walls 45 Off-street parking including dimensions of individual parking spaces, internal circulation pattern for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, wheel stops, and type of surfacing proposed 46 Driveway widths 47 Computation of total covered and uncovered parking spaces required by Corona Municipal Code for each parcel and the number proposed to meet the requirements 48 Computation of square footage of landscape areas 49 Location of landscaping including existing and proposed trees (including ex sting street trees), shrub masses and ground cover area 50 Loading spaces, including dimensions 51 Estimated quantities of each to be moved 52 Direction of drainage flow with slope in percentage 53 Signs, including area, location, height, illumination and mechanical movement 54 On -site lighting 55 Trash enclosures, if any 56 Outdoor storage areas 57 Exterior architectural projections 58 All entrances 59 Mechanical equipment and proposed screening 60 Proposed swimming pools or patios 61 Completed CFO Annexation. Review sheet The planning director may waive any information described above upon determination that it is not relevant to the review, or the planning director may require additional information as needed FOR ALL DPR, TTM OR PM SUBMITTALS Show linear footage of each street on the map or on a separate sheet Include both sides of the street for street tree calculations For example Rimpau Avenue Street CIAO (new unnamed streets) Street OBO GRAND TOTAL 110 L F 200 L F 315t,F 625 L F 134 04/08/2003 15 51 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS I1008 PRECISE PLAN & PRECISE PLAN REVIEW MODIFICATIOPI A. ITEMS REQugRED FOR FILING ❑ 1 Completed Application Form Clearance from project planner required prior to application submittal. ❑ 2 Precise Plan review processing fee of $4,120.00 plus$10.00 per/du a_ Processing fee for Precise Plan Modification review - $2,465 00 + $10.00/perdu b. Public Notice fee of $125 00 O 3 Fish & Game processing fees a. Fish & Game fee of $64 00 to be paid at time of application submittal. b. Fish & Game Negative Declaration fee of $1,250 (to be determined at PRC), or c. Fish & Game EIR fee of $850 (to be determined at PRC;. O 4 Completed Environmental information Form with - a Photographs of site and Surrounding area (a minimum of4 site and 4 surrounding) labeled north, east, south, west and mounted on 11 x 14" paper. b. Environmental Impact Assessment fee of $1,045 without mitigation or $2,090 with mitigation O 5_ Thirty (30) folded copies or full size site plan drawn to scale O 6. Thirty (30) 11 x 1 7" copies of a Building elevations b Floor plans and square footage of each unit. c. Preliminary landscape plan d. Sign Program and details e Fence plan showing material, height and location. f_ Other items required at DPR Noce If it is determined through DPR or screencheck that 11 x 175 are not legible fula size plans will be required_ Also, lithe project is within a specific plan, additional items may be required by that specific p/an O 7 Colored rendering or colored elevations and material pallet and colored preliminary landscape plan. ❑ 8 8 x 10" colored photographs of items in #7 above to keep i 1 the City's file. The onginals will be returned to the applicant_ ❑ 9 One 8 I /2 x 1 1 " clear transparency of Nos. 5 and 6 (a)-(1) above ❑ 10. Letter from the applicant stating how the request meets all the following cnteria necessary to granting a Precise Plan per Corona Municipal Code Section 17.91.070. ❑ 11 Proof of ownership (r e_ latest Grant Deed). ❑ 12. Letter of authorization from the property owner if different than applicant. ❑ 13 Noticing package which includes a_ Separate lists of property owners names, addresses and assessors parcel numbers within 500 feet of suz..j c.t site, prepared and certified by a IrcensedTitle Company, prepared from latest tax roll b List of property occupants addresses (when owner mailing address is different than property address) and assessor parcel numbers for properties contiguous to the site. c Assessor's maps showing the site and indicating the properties listed in the 500 foot radi us. d_ Two sets of gummed mailing labels for 500 foot property owner list and property occupants addresses list (when ownermailingaddre .s is different than property address). 04/08/2003 15 51 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS 1j 009 PRECISE PLAN APPLICATION PAGE 2 B. NOTICE TO APPLICANTS. 1. Clearance from project planner required prior to application submittal. Development Plan Review may be required prior to acceptance of complete application. 2. Acceptance of application at the counter does not represent a complete application. California Government Code Section 65943 provides for :;0 days in which the City can review the application and determine completeness. The applicant will be sent a letter during this time period stating the application is complete, or that additional Items are necessary. 3. It is recommended that applicant, representative or property owner be present at all hearings. 4. All con espondence and reports will be mailed to the project proponent only. 5. If you have any questions regarding the above, please call the Planning Department at (909) 736-2268. 6 All plans or maps submitted shall be folded to a maximuni size of 8 x 14" with the title block visible. C. ATTACHMENTS - 1 Section 17.91.070 CMC. Last pnnted 10/30/01 2 56 PM g \docslapps\word appslpreuse plan review 136 04/08/2003 15 51 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS 4010 • _ VARIANCElitAIORAPPLEGEMON A. ITEMS REQUIRE© FOR FILING ❑ 1. Completed Application Form. O 2 Processing fee of $3.040 + 515 50 per lot. O 3. Scanning Fee of $25.00~ 4. Public Notice fee of $125 00 O 5. Fish & Game processing fees a Fish & Game fee of 564 00 to be paid at time of application submittal. b Fish & Game Negative Declaration fee of 51,250 (to be determined at PRC); or c. F ish & Game EIR fee of $850 (to be determined at PIRC) O 6. Completed Environmental Information Form with a Photographs of site and surrounding area (a minimum of 4 site and 4 surrounding) labeled north, east, south, west and mounted on 11 x 14" paper. b Environmental Impact Assessment fee of 51,045 without mitigation or $2,090 with mitigation. O 7 Thirty (30) folded copies of site plan drawn to scale cleat ly showing variance request. ❑ 8 One 8 1/2 x 11" dear transparency of site plan. O 9 Letter signed and dated by the applicant stating how the request meets all four (4) of the following conditions necessary to granting a variance per Corona Municipal Code Section 17 96.020 a. because of special circumstances applicable to subject property including size, hape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property 01- privleges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification, b. Any Variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the didjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated, c. The granting of the Variance will not be materially dotrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, we/fare, or injurious to property and improvements in the same vicinity and zone in which subject property P. situated, d The granting of such Variance will not adversely affect the General Plan for the City. ❑ 10 Proof of ownership (i.e , latest Grant Deed). ❑ 11 Letter of authorization from the property owner if differ€nt than applicant. ❑ 12 Noticing package which includes a Separate lists of property owners' names, addresses and assessors parcel numbers within 500 feet of subject site, prepared and certified by a licensed Title Company, prepared from latest tax roll. b. List of property occupants addresses (when owner mailing address is different than property address) and assessor parcel numbers for properties contiguous to the site c Assessor's maps showing the site and indicating the properties listed in the 500 - foot radius 137 04/08/2003 15 52 FAX 415 433 4368 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS (¢1011 VARIANCE APPLICATION PAGE 2 13. d. Two sets of gummed mailing labels for 500 -foot property owner list and property occupants addresses list (when owner -mailing address is different than property address). NOTICE TO APPLICANTS - 1 Accepi.ance of application at the counter does not repre ,ent a complete application. CaltfotntaGovernment Code Section 65943 provides for 30 days in which the City can review the application and determine completeness. The applicant will be sent a letter during this time period stating the application is complete or that additional items are necessary. 2. It is recommended that applicant, representative or property owner should be present at all heanngs 3. All correspondence and reports will be mailed to the project proponent only. 4. If you have any questions regarding the above, please call the Planning Department at (909) 736-2262. 5 All plans or maps submitted shall be folded to a maximum size of 8 x 14" with the title block visible C. ATTACHMENTS 1 CMC Sections 1 7 96.010, 1 7 96.020, 1 7.96 1 70. last printed 10/30/01 3 51 PM G \dots\apps\ \word apps\variance (major) 138 04/08/2003 15.52 FAX 415 433 4368 04/01/2003 16.4E 19092793550 GORDON CHONG & PARTNERS t¢J012 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PAGE 01/01 j4ETROLIMETROLINK Gaf. 2003 ARCHITECTURE OF PA ��� H h° $ STRUCTURE 1. VARIATION OF DEPTH ♦ RECESSED OR PROJECTING VERTICAL COLOMIJN TREATMENTS • RECESSED OPENINGS ♦ CHANGE IN PLANE ♦ USE OF REVEALS • CHANGE IN TEXTURE 2. INCORPORATE THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, COLORS, AND MATERIALS OF THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 3 LANDSCAPE PLANTERS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE STRUCTURE. 4. THE USE OF VINES ON THE PARKING STRUCTURE. 5. USE TREES TO BREAK UP BUILDING MASS. 6 DESIGN IT SO IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY LOOK LIKE A PARKING STRUCTURE (BIRCH ST. PROMEN 4DE IN BREA AIND OLD TOWN IN PASADENA). 7. USE OF LIGHTING TO BRING OUT LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF BUILDING. 8. ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FROM STATION TO STRUCTURE. Post -ft' Fax Note 7671 Ta GEOFF /51EAM CajflO t Mune - 01;:0 Dirt -4 %1 f03 1p:a$eak From kg"( 0Z.1_,I CO c4- Lr = ;Lot ri A "`It A 1,-14 ' 155-1 X133 - 4,lw$ Z -i9 - 5556 G.\Reyg\MISMIE'T,ROLINK-PS doe 139 AGENDA ITEM 6N RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Reprogram State Transit Assistance Funds Allocated to SunLine Transit Agency as Match Funds for the Regional Intelligent Transportation Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to reprogram $221,000 in State Transit Assistance Funds previously allocated to SunLine Transit Agency to be used as matching funds for the Regional Intelligent Transportation Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1996, SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), in cooperation with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Commission, submitted an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) grant application to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Funding was subsequently allocated through the FTA and later, additional funds were secured through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If approved, it is anticipated that the ITS Project will provide SunLine with new radio communication capabilities, Automatic Vehicle Location utilizing Global Positioning Satellite Technologies, Mobile Data Terminals as well as new computer server capabilities that will allow both SunLine and RTA's dispatch centers to directly interact with each other. This capability will allow the agencies to take over the control of the other agency's dispatching in the event of a disaster or other emergency. In SunLine's draft FY 2004 SRTP, $221,000 was identified as matching funds for the ITS project, however, in actuality, the total match requirement is $280,422. At this time, SunLine is requesting that $221,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds previously allocated, but unclaimed, be reprogrammed to partially cover the local match requirement of the ITS Project. The STA Funds were originally programmed for bus replacement. Once SunLine's internal audit is Agenda Item 6N 140 completed, the FY 2004 SRTP will be redrafted to request that bus replacement funds be set aside. At that time, the balance of the match requirement ($59,422) will also be requested. This request was presented and approved by SunLine's Board at its August 6, 2003 meeting. If approved, these funds would be over and above the monthly allocation of Local Transportation Funds and Measure "A" Funds approved at the July 9, 2003 Commission meeting. Agenda Item 6N 141 AGENDA ITEM 60 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Banning Transit Program's Request for Funding to Upgrade its CNG Fueling Station STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to allocate up to $50,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the City of Banning's Transit Program for upgrading their CNG fueling station. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Banning (Banning) operates a transit system providing transportation services to Banning, Beaumont, and Cabazon residents. Currently, there are seven Banning transit vehicles and seven Banning Unified School District vehicles that utilize the City Yard's fueling station. In addition, the City of Beaumont operates a transit system and has recently secured one CNG bus and will receive its second CNG bus within the next two months. Beaumont provides transit services to residents of Cherry Valley, Highland Springs, and Beaumont. Banning currently operates a small CNG fueling station at its City Yard. The station does not have adequate capacity to fuel existing vehicles. Banning's CNG station is frequently down for maintenance and/or repair. When that occurs, vehicles requiring CNG fuel must be driven to the nearest CNG station which is located in Palm Springs. This commute not only interrupts the transit operation but is also cost prohibitive. The cost to upgrade Banning's fueling station is approximately $408,000. They currently have $100,000 from the City's AB 2766 funds and $50,000 from the school district. In addition, they are requesting approval from the South Coast Air Quality Management District to reprogram $140,000 in funds originally set aside for a regional fueling facility. Banning has also secured approximately $100,000 from various other agencies. They are requesting that up to $50,000 in LTF transit funds be allocated to cover some of the costs. At this time, Banning anticipates that approximately $20,000 of those funds will actually be spent on the project Agenda Item 60 142 with the balance available in case costs come in higher than anticipated or if other funding sources are no longer available. If approved, the upgraded fueling facility will consist of two 75 cfm compressors, new fuel ports and nozzles, and an extra storage tank capable of semi -fast fueling. The upgraded facility is designed for future expansion and will be accessible to the public. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 03-04 Source of Funds: GLA No.: Local Transportation Funds Amount: Not to exceed $50,000 Budget Ad ustment: N Not Applicable Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 08/25/03 Agenda Item 60 143 AGENDA ITEM 6P RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 a TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendments to Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendments to the FYs 2003 and 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Palm Desert is requesting to amend their FY 2003 Measure "A" Plan to advance one project, the Magnesia Falls Widening Project, from FY 2003-04 to FY 2002-03 and decrease funding to the Fred Waring Drive Widening Project. The City is also requesting to amend their FY 2004 Plan to delete the Magnesia Falls Project and to shift $400,000 from the Monterey Avenue Freeway Loop Project to the Portola Avenue Widening Project and the Highway 111 improvements by $200,000 each. Attachments: 1) Letter from the City of Palm Desert with Revised FY 2003 Schedule 2) Letter from the City of Palm Desert with Revised FY 2004 Schedule Agenda Item 6P 144 CITY Of PRL DESEPT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 1 FAX: 760 340-0574 1nfo@palm-desert org 64956 July 21, 2003 Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 [OE E E MI JUL 222003 J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Subject: Revision 3 - City of Palm Desert's Capital Improvement Program (Measure "A") Fiscal Year 2003 Dear Mr. Rivera, This correspondence is to bring to your attention, for your review and consideration, a revision of Measure "A" documents previously submitted. At the end of the 02/03 Fiscal Year, the City decided it would be advantageous to move forward with the Magnesia Falls widening project sooner than previously planned. We are requesting that the $2,309,000 approved for Fiscal Year 2003/2004 be moved to Fiscal Year 2002/2003. In addition, the Fred Waring widening project requires less additional funding than we had anticipated. The City would like to request a decrease in funding of $150,000 for this Fiscal Year. The total Measure "A" funding for the Fred Waring widening will decrease to $500,000 for Fiscal Year 2002/2003. Attached is a copy of the most recent version of the 02/03 Measure "A" Local Funds Program that the Commission has already approved. Also attached is the proposed revision to the 02/03 program. Note the increase in item 5, and the decrease in item 3. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused, and as always, we appreciate the cooperation and coordination that RCTC has shown the City of Palm Desert. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Michael Errante, P.E. Director of Public Works Attachments (2 as noted) cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer J. Luis Espinoza, Assistant Director of Finance Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager/City Engineer 145 X.29.14 C, MONIED 06110(110 ?AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002 — 2003 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E. Phone No.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: July 21, 2003 Page 1 Proposed Revision ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) 1. Palm Desert High School Access on Cook Roadway & signal 500 Street 2. Portola Avenue/Dinah Shore Extension Roadway widening 1,314 3. Fred Waring Widening Roadway widening 500 4. Portola Interchange at 1-10 Feasibility Study and ROW 776 5. Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge Street Improvements from Monterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road Bridge construction, street widening, and traffic signal modifications (additional funding due to expanding of scope of project — see prior year summary for funding carryover) 3,309* 6. Westbound Dinah Shore from Miriam Way to Key Largo Avenue Street improvements and median island construction 300 7. Monterey Avenue between Hovley Lane West and Country Club Drive Median island construction 65 8. Monterey Avenue at Parkview Drive/COD Intersection improvements 0 (postponed to future year) 9. San Pablo Avenue at Highway 111 Intersection improvements 28 * - rounded to the nearest thousand 7/21/03 - G:\PubWorks\Ryan GaylenWord FilesIRCTC 02-03\RCTC Funds 146 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002 — 2003 Agency: Prepared by: Phone No.: Date: ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. City of Palm Desert Michael Errante, P.E. (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 May 22, 2003 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS Palm Desert High School Access on Cook Street Portola Avenue/Dinah Shore Extension Fred Waring Widening Portola Interchange at 1-10 Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge Street Improvements from Monterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road Westbound Dinah Shore from Miriam Way to Key Largo Avenue Monterey Avenue between Hovley Lane West and Country Club Drive Monterey Avenue at Parkview Drive/COD San Pablo Avenue at Highway 111 PROJECT TYPE Roadway & signal Roadway widening Roadway widening Feasibility Study and ROW Bridge construction, street widening, and traffic signal modifications (additional funding due to expanding of scope of project — see prior year summary for funding carryover) Street improvements and median island construction Median island construction Intersection improvements (postponed to future year) intersection improvements Page 1 of Approved Version (Approved by Comm': TOTAL COST ($000'S) 500 1,314 650 776 1,000 300 65 0 28 7/21/03 - G:IPubWorkslRyen Gayler\Word FilesVRCTC 02-031RCTC Funds 147 July 21, 2003 CITY OF PRLffl OESEPT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 I FAX' 760 340-0574 info@palm-descrr org 64957 Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 MECE[IVEn ILM JUL 2 2 2003 L 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Subject: Revision 1 - City of Palm Desert's Capital Improvement Program (Measure "A") Fiscal Year 2004 Dear Mr. Rivera, This correspondence is to bring to your attention, for your review and consideration, a revision of Measure "A" documents previously submitted. At the beginning of the 03/04 Fiscal Year, the City learned of a delay in the Monterey Avenue Freeway Loop project. Therefore, we request a decrease of $400,000 in the Measure "A" funds budgeted for that project. With this $400,000 we would like to increase the budget for the Portola Avenue widening and the Highway 111 improvements by $200,000 each. In addition, the Magnesia Falls Bridge and Street Project requires funding sooner than previously anticipated. The City requests to move the money originally budgeted in Fiscal Year 2003/2004 to Fiscal Year 2002/2003. The total Measure "A" funding for the Magnesia Falls project will decrease to zero for this Fiscal Year. Attached is a copy of the most recent version of the 03/04 Measure "A" Local Funds Program that the Commission has already approved. Also attached is the proposed revision to the 03/04 program. Note the decreases in items 1 and 4, and the increases in items 2 and 3. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this may have causea, and as always, we appreciate the cooperation and coordination that RCTC has shown the City of Palm Desert. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Michael Errante, P.E. Director of Public Works Attachments (2 as noted) cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer J. Luis Espinoza, Assistant Director of Finance Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager/City Engineer X.29.14 148 i, n�nm CIO AIMED PAM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 — 2004 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E. Phone No.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: July 21, 2003 Page 1 / Proposed Revision ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) 1. Monterey Avenue / Freeway Loop - design PSR and EIR 2,525 2. NB Portola Avenue — Alessandro to El Cortez Roadway widening 2,035 3. Highway 111 Improvements Roadway widening 3,300 4. Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge/Street Improvements from Monterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road Bridge construction, street widening, and traffic signal modifications (additional funding due to expanding of scope of project — see prior year summary for funding carryover) 4,100 5. Portola Interchange at 1-10 PSR and EIR 18,000 6. Portola Avenue/Dinah Shore Extension Roadway widening 1,700 7. Monterey Avenue between Hovley Lane West and Country Club Drive Median island construction 115 8. Westbound Dinah Shore from Miriam Way to Street improvements 315 Key Largo Avenue 9. Palm Desert High School Access on Cook Roadway & signal 505 Street * - rounded to the nearest thousand 7/21103 - G:1PubWorks\Ryan Gayler1Word Files\RCTC 03-041RCTC Funds 149 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 — 2004 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E. Phone No.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: June 5, 2003 Page 1 of Approved Version (Approved by Commi: ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) 1. Monterey Avenue / Freeway Loop - design PSR and EIR 2,525 2. NB Portola Avenue — Alessandro to El Cortez Roadway widening 2,035 3. Highway 111 Improvements Roadway widening 3,300 4. Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge/Street Improvements from Monterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road Bridge construction, street widening, and traffic signal modifications (additional funding due to expanding of scope of project — see prior year summary for funding carryover) 4,100 5. Portola Interchange at 1-10 PSR and EIR 18,000 6. Portola Avenue/Dinah Shore Extension Roadway widening 1,700 7. Monterey Avenue between Hovley Lane West and Country Club Drive Median island construction 115 8. Westbound Dinah Shore from Miriam Way to Street improvements 315 Key Largo Avenue 9. Palm Desert High School Access on Cook Roadway & signal 505 Street * - rounded to the nearest thousand 7/21/03 - G:1PubWorks\Ryan Gayler1Word Files'RCTC 03-041RC 150 AGENDA ITEM 6Q RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager FROM: THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request from the City of Banning to Reprogram Fiscal Year 2002- 2003 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2002-03 SB 821 Funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Banning was allocated $132,000 in FY 2002-03 SB 821 Funds for construction of the six (6) sidewalk improvement projects. The City will provide a match of $132,000 to the six projects. The construction contract for Project No. 2003-05, "A. C. Overlay, Pavement Rehabilitation and Sidewalk Improvements on Various Streets" was awarded by the city council on August 12, 2003. The six projects were included in the award. As indicated in the city's letter dated August 13, 2003, four (4) of the projects came in under the estimated cost by $25,170 and two (2) of the projects came in over the estimated cost by $20,130. The City is requesting to reprogram the unused portion of SB 821 funding ($10,065, or 50% of the overrun) from the four under -spent projects to the two over -spent projects. Should the Commission approve the City's request, there would be no additional cost to the Commission, and these funds have not been made available to any other agency. Attachment: Letter from City of Banning Agenda Item 6Q 151 CALIFORNIA 65294 CITY of BANNING lir-ESTABLISHED 191313i*. 99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (909) 922-3130 • Fax (909) 922-3141 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT August 13, 2003 Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Assistant Director of Planning Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager 1,1q1E© EE V EFF--)) AUG 15 2003 E' RIVERSIDE C0[1NJY TRANSPORTATION COmmJsQleN RE: Request to Reprogram FY 2002-03. SB-821 Program Funds for Nicolet Street (two projects), Sunset Avenue, George Street, 3'd Street, and Florida Street Sidewalk Projects Gentlemen: The City of Banning received six SB-821 Grants, in Fiscal Year 2002-03, for the following sidewalk improvements: l . Nicolet Street, from Sunrise Avenue to 16`x' Street in an amount of 2. Nicolet Street, from Fay Avenue to Hargrave Street in an amount of 3. Sunset Avenue, from .Jacinto View Road to Wilson Street in an amount of 4. 3rd Street, from Nicolet Street to George Street in an amount of 5. George Street, from 611) Street to 2011) Street in an amount of 6. Florida Street, from Wilson Street to George Street in an amount of Total Amount: $35,000.00 $22,500.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00 $27,500.00 $12,000.00 $132,000.00 The construction contract for Project No. 2003-05, "A.C. Overlay, Pavement Rehabilitation and Sidewalk Improvements on Various Streets" includes the above listed sidewalk improvements as part of Bid Schedules II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, respectively. The contract was awarded by the City Council to Silvia Construction, Inc. on August 12, 2003. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a table of the SB-821 Grant, estimated cost, actual bid price and reprogramming request for each Bid Schedule. Due to the underrun on Bid Schedules 1I, III, [V and VII (unused $12,585.00 in SB 821 funding or $25,170.00 in total funding) and ovemin on Bid Schedules V and VI (short of $10,065.00 in SB 821 funding or $20,130.00 in total funding), the City would like to request the reprogramming of the extra funds available in Bid Schedules 1I, III, IV, and VII to Bid Schedules V and VI. U.26.0 152 This would ensure that the City of Banning receives the total available SB-821 grant funding of $129,480.00, which was awarded previously. Note that the estimated SB 821 project cost was $264,000.00 and the actual total bid amount submitted by Silvia Constriction, Inc. is $258,960.00. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and should you have any questions, please contact Ann Marie Loconte, Associate Engineer at (909) 922-3130. Sincerely, Kahono'Oei, Assistant Director of Public Works Copy: Arm Marie Loconte, Associate Engineer Paul Toor, Public Works Director Judy Stovner, Financc Director 153 EXHIBIT "A" Bid Schedule Location II III IV 1 VI VII Total Amt. Nicolet Street Nicolet Street Sunset Avenue 3rd Street George Street Florida Street SB821 Grant $35,000.00 $22,500.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00 $27,500.00 $12,000.00 $132,000.00 Estimated Cost $70,000.00 $45,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,000.00 $55,000.00 $24,000.00 $264,000.00 Actual Bid $58,990.00 $43,000.00 $41,960.00 $29,390.00 $65,740.00 $19,880.00 $258,960.00 Total Bal of Fundir over/<un $11,010.( $2,000.0( $8,040.0( <$9,390.1 <$10,74C $4,120.0( 154 AGENDA ITEM 6R RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission Jerry Rivera, Program Manager FROM: THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Agreements to Provide Freeway Service Patrol Service on State Route 60 in Moreno Valley STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-45-023 with the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee for the operation of Freeway Service Patrol service on SR 60; 2) Approve Agreement No. 04-45-022, Amendment No. 1 to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement No. 02-45-071 with Pepe's Towing Services, Inc., to add two vehicles to Beat No. 18 along SR 60; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Program currently contracts with three tow truck companies; Hamner Towing, Pepe's Towing, and Tri-City Towing, to provide roving tow truck service on five segments or beats of SR 91, I-215/SR 60, and 1-15. The agreements cover the normal days and hours of operation, reimbursements and penalties, and uniform and equipment requirements of the program. At its April 9, 2003 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to submit an application to the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) requesting $275,400 in funding for Freeway Service Patrol service on SR 60 for a two-year period. The Commission has been notified that its proposal was approved and we were awarded the funds requested. The MSRC anticipates that their standard contract will be transmitted to the Commission by the end of September 2003. However, staff is seeking approval at this time because construction is due to begin in mid -September 2003. Agenda Item 6R 155 The project service area is on SR 60 from Day Street to Redlands Boulevard, approximately 7.6 miles, and will provide service specifically for the SR 60 HOV construction project. The project will provide two (2) vehicles during the morning and afternoon commute hours (5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, for the two-year duration of the construction project. FSP service is scheduled to begin on or about September 15, 2003. The agreement with the existing tow truck operator, Pepe's Towing Service, must now be amended to include the additional vehicles at a cost of $132,770 for the balance of FY 2003-04. The agreement with the MSRC provides for 75% reimbursement to RCTC for the hourly cost of the vehicles and CHP operating costs. The 25% local match and other miscellaneous operating expenses ($6,700) will be funded with Measure "A" funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 03-04 Amount: $132,770 Source of Funds: Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (75%) Measure "A" (25%) Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 1201-45-81014 Fiscal Procedures Approved: '1,.1 •.,„j . Date: 08/25/03 Agenda Item 6R 156 AGENDA ITEM 6S RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Karen Leland, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of July averaged 4,074, unchanged from the month of June. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of 2% from a year ago July 2002. July on -time performance averaged 87% inbound (+2% from June) and 80% outbound (-1 % from June). There were 44 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of July. The following were the primary causes: Cause # of Delays % of , Total Signals/Detectors 6 14% Slow Orders/MOW 1 2% Track/Switch 2 5% Dispatching 25 57% Mechanical 3 7% Freight Train 1 2% Metrolink Meet/Turn 1 2% *Other 5 11% TOTAL 44 100% 'UP Interference, Brush Fire, Trespasser Struck UP Delays: Metrolink staff has addressed delays in service with UP. Since bringing the matter to the attention of UP, substantial improvements were made by the week of July 21St. Delays seem to be consistent during the month of July. Agenda Item 6S 157 Inland Empire -Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of July averaged 3,375, a 2% increase from the month of June. The line has averaged an overall increase of 14% from a year ago July 2002. July on -time performance averaged 93% inbound (-3% from June) and 80% outbound (-8% from June). There were 35 delays greater than five minutes during the month of July. The primary causes were: Cause # of,, Delays % of Total Signals/Detectors 2 6% Ti ack/Switel h 1 3% Dispatching 22 63% Mechanical 1 3% Freight Train 1 3% Metrolink Meet/Turn 2 6% SCRRA Hold Policy 1 3% *Other 5 14% TOTAL 35 100% *BNSF Interference Late Crew, Trespasser Struck, BNSF Mech. Problem, BNSF Track Warrants BNSF Delays: In relation to the delays noted on the IEOC and 91 Lines, BNSF has placed management staff at the dispatch center in San Bernardino to evaluate their performance and Metrolink delays. Results of the evaluation will be included in a future agenda item. 91 Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of July averaged 1,569, a 4% decrease from the month of June. The Line has averaged an overall increase of 21 % from a year ago July 2002. July on -time performance averaged 90% inbound (-5% from June) and 80% outbound (-13% from June). During the month of July, there were 31 delays greater than five minutes. They primary causes were: Cause # of Delays % of Total Signals/Detectors 1 3% Slow Orders/MOW 1 3% Dispatching 27 87% Metrolink Meet/Turn 1 3% *Other 1 3% TOTAL 31 100% 'BNSF Interference Agenda Item 6S 158 Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program Rideshare Rideshare incentives: With the grant period nearing completion, an ARMS application deadline date of July 31St was implemented to allow for timely assessment and processing of the $165 discount and $50 recruitment bonuses submitted to eligible participants. As of July 31st, enrollment totaled 279 (Riverside -Downtown 93, Pedley 19, La Sierra 63, West Corona 42, North Main Corona 62), potentially freeing up 140 spaces for new riders. RTA Express Bus Shuttle (Route 99): Ridership for the month of July averaged 21 passengers per day, a 2% decrease from the month of June. Per the existing Rideshare2Rails grant, financial support from RCTC for Route 99 will end August 31, 2003. RTA staff has been informed, and any ongoing service provision beyond the grant period will be solely supported by the Transit Agency. Special Charter Train Beach Trains: The 8th Beach Train season continues to exceed last year's performance. As of August 21, a total 10,264 tickets were sold, which represents a 3% increase over last year this time. New this year, Radio Disney made an appearance on board the Beach Train entertaining children with trivia questions, prizes and other Disney giveaways. Attachment: Metrolink Performance Summaries (July 2003) Agenda Item 65 159 Wr:///777 rgZ/Zlf/M7F7/7"/rM/g/A WZI/7". il/Z/Z/Z7MA vfare/Z//// /lA #//7/7/A Off/ Z/ZASOZZZff/A r// 0"/"/ "171,""A FM/A dif//'.,/,/1/0/1A rffelf/1"/"ZZA #/#717 ZlfZ/Zff/FZA 9 PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TI ME vs TRAINS ON -TIME Jul 02 Aug Sep Nov Dec Jan O ct * Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule Includes Weekend Service Feb '❑ Pas senger OTP% D Train OTP% I Apr May Jun Jul 03 Mar 162 100.O% METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) 96% 96% 95% 94% 94% , r 94% 92% 92% Jul 02 Aug2 Sep 02 Oct 02 Nov 02 Dec 02 J u r r 1 r se �,,, . ter ;5+�'? _ .�;. �, k' -I > .. � u_ BO.0°/0 .� 4 �-. ...S+-�f -i' l' w 'P . -` T tlYafs �•. e . ,. . � r 3L fru-1� i r - . 't �. � 9 an 03 Feb 03 Mar 03 Apr 03 May 03 Jun 03 Jul 03 ®% Arriving Within 5 -M inutes Of Scheduled Time I 163 A % of Train Delays By Responsibility July 2003 TR K -Contr actor 1% SIG -Contractor 15 % Passenger 4% Includes Weekend Service UPRR 12% Vandalism Mech anic al 1% 6% OP Agr€tw'irgrov (SCRRA) 2% 2% 3% BNSF 33% % of Train Delays By Responsibility 12 Month Period Ending July 2003 Vandalism TRK-Contractor UPRR 3% 1% 9% SIG -Contractor 11% SCRRA 8% Pa;seng 2% Includes Weekend 569 -VICE 13% OP Agree Law-Enf 1% 3% Mechanical 9% BNSF 35% rnprov (SCRRA) 5% 164 PERFORMANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP 11,111 METROLINK 6165 Jul 02 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED Ventura County Antel ope $an, Bernardino Burbank Turns 3,664 5,840 9,817 510 4,159 Orange C ou nty 5,519 I ni Empi 2,958 TOTAL SYSTEM 1,292 33,759 Aug 02 3,506 5,694 9,688 524 4,047 5,556 3,092 1,378 33,485 Sep 02 3,689 5,495 10,141 531 4,222 5,432 3,053 1,546 34,109 Oct 02 3,770 5,704 10,328 541 4,380 5,465 3,140 1,584 34,912 Nov 02 Dec 02 Jan 03 Feb 03 _Mar 03 Apr 03 May 03 Jun 03 Jul 03 3,759 3,402 3,673 3,727 3,919 3,880 3,694 3,641 3,624 6,011 5,437 5,253 5,370 5,384 5,584 5,402 5,536 5,536 10,411 9,516 10,112 10,248 10,546 10,652 10,206 10,378 10,278 532 497 536 551 553 598 572 557 555 4,444 4,031 4,393 4,559 4,377 4,095 5,372 4,802 5,148 5,540 5,655 5,599 3,139 2,730 2,997 3,360 3,414 3,499 1,492 1,617 1,596 1,633 1,624 1,678 35,160 32,032 , 33,708 34,988 35,472 35,585 4,112 4,075 4,074 5,478 5,474 5,453 3,323 3,319 3,375 1,607 1,631 1,569 34,394 34,611 34,464 % Change Jul 03 vs Jun 03 0% 0% -1% 0% 0% 0% 2% -4% 0% % Change Jul 03 vs Jul 02 -1% -5% 5% 9% -2% -1% 14% 21% 2% 166 AVER AGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW Jul -02 86 (1) (1) 9 (1) (1) 95 (1) Aug -02 Sep -021 Oct -02 Nov -02 74 422 556 726 (1) 99 102 159 (1) 33 73 128 8 48 (1) (1) 23 8 64 26 15 81 71 101 82 470 620 806 (1) i rfoilt i 62 (1) (1) 122 41 128 230 88 229 -10 % -14 % 473% 32 % 30% (1) 5% 80% (1) (1) (1) 115 % 160% 59 66 Dec -02 Jan -03 Feb -03 Mar -03 Apr -03 May -03 Jun -03 692 797 848 865 951 892 975 119 128 284 199 253 150 155 82 98 137 194 122 121 134 73 23 22 88 15 18 89 22 7 85 47 24 108 18 10 106 34 35 89 24 14 765 885 936 951 1,059 998 1,064 142 143 306 246 271 184 179 104 116 144 218 132 156 148 7% -38% 1% 114% -20% 10 % -32% -3% -55% 12 % 24 % 51% -40 % 18% -5 % 71 61 82 90 113 89 117 Jul -03 1,037 181 145 100 31 13 1,137 212 158 18% 7% 111 io ehange Jui '03 vs Jun 03 6% 17% 8% 12% 1 29% -7% 7% 18% 7% % Change Jul 03 vs Jul 02 1106% (1) (1) 1011% (1) (1) 1097% (1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was only good on Amtrak weekday trains. (2) Rail 2 Rail program started September 1, 2002. (3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train, day of week and month. 1®7 (1) (1) pert summ- RaiI8/5/2003 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED INCEPTION TO DATE 40,000 38,000 - 36,000 - FY 03/04 34,000 e 32,000 • 30,000 - 28,000 • F 26,000 - 0 24,000 0 22,000 20,000 18,000 :�-----^X��XFY 94/95 16,000 x }( 14,000 FY 02/03 Y 01/02 FY 00/01 =FY 99/00 FY 98/99 FY 97/98 FY 96/97 FY 95/96 12,000 10,000 8,000 FY 93/94 6,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 168 Av g Daily Riders 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 San Bernardino Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips y , d M 1 < T , _ j� ... ± �ffr . - a. r k � I '''''' ��f� I U3 . U'rlE -,q• r�z a 1` Py,� y '• RH.t ,• 1 .. rs. Y`p ..:--qtr �: ;;,. s /' S-ilE � .. Y F „} i-.. .y` _ ry '' .f1I. - ,. ' _. .i-; XI f i �. jt' , �'•r � r 7, .404_ �• ..n , i+, r, a 3`t p . 'i ^V ad, }� 7 .pli ,-' `"'''! ,y , a r 1l ;t . «'� : it- 6 %Ci TI rMa by .}'� '4,r c 5. Kt,`'�--irf S 'I nT q I ,'41 -17.F i 7ti �t� I nl ;� � .yr J s' V ' 1 ' FP -=L 2�s ] t -d��W.f `'' rs i 4 I 4� dr_ ,r Ir4?' .y�, � ! `W✓ .�Ll `l S5i l J E .. J - I 1 - - j-,v , 6 t, I.� %�4f" . -> 1 - ti Ijr Yi}:'��,r ' -'s . e , '` r IL "bl�S'i Ct ` `.4 I I br ` �a�� at al I r'i '•- y f" ,r y •I 'I Jul -02 Aug [Note: Sept Includes LA. County Fair Riders] 3500 Zr 3000- 2500- 2000- p 1500'- o) 1000- 500- 0 Jul -02 Note: Sunday Service Began 06/25/00 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul -03 San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips May Jun Jul -03 169 in 3500` 3000 2500- 2000 1500- 1000 - Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Jul -02 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul -03 11 170 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SU MMARY Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minut es of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS Rotate => '' Ventura [rt aunty Out Anteio!pe'Valley in _ Qut - $an 8era*rdinc I Out Burt r* Tt,itr #xt. C .tt f iverside' in : Out Orange County to :-'Out Inland EmpIOC Sp, No ` RWv/ in- OW. OW Total Systen <` In Out:: Total Jul 02 99% 99% 98% 95% 98 % 99 % 100% 99 %r 99% 96% 91% 95% 93% 90% 92% 92%I 97 % 96 % 96r Aug 02 100% 97% 99% 96% 96% 91%, 100% 99 % 97 % 95% 89% 91% 92% 90% 91% 90% 96% 94 % 95' Sep 02 98% 99% 95% 94% 94% 91% 98% 98 % 96% 98 % 85% 92% 94% 84 % 89% 92% , 94 % 93 %, 949 969 Oct 02 99% 98% 99% 99% 96 % 95 % 98% 95%, 95 % 96 %, 92% 96% _ 93% 93% 92 % 96% 96% 96 % Nov 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 94% 84%' 100% 99% 97 % 98% 88% 89%a 92 % 95% 86 % 94% 94 % 93% 949 Dec 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 97% 91% 99% 100%, 97% 97% 96 % 97% 90% 93% 93% 96% 96% 95 %, 969 Jan 03 99% 98% 89% 89% 95% 85% 97 % 97 % 93% 97% 94% 97% 90 % 89% 92% 98% 94% 93 % 939 Feb 03 97% 96% , 95% 92% 95% 95% 100 % 96% 95% 91% 96% 93% 93 % 93 % 91 % 92% 95% 941/4 959 Mar 03 97% 99% 88% 92% 94% 94% 99% 97%, 97 % 81% 87% 93% 87 % 90% 85% 90 % 92% 93%! 929 Apr 03 98% 97% , 96% 97% 97% 94% 99% 99 %r- 92 % 98%' 76% 85% 81% 86% 82 % 82 % 91% 93% 929 May 03 99% 99% 92% 90% 92% 89% 99% 99% 98% 98% 95 % 94 %1 95% 91% 94% 90 % 95 % _ 93 % 949 Jun 03 98% 97% 91% 91% 93% 88% 100% 100% 85% 81% 93% 94% 96% 88% 95% 93% 94 % 91% 929 JuI03 r 98% 96% 91% 89% 91% 83% 100% 98% 87% 80%, 85% 88% 93% 80% 90% 80 %, 92% 87% 899 Peak Period Trains Arriving Within 5 M inutes of Scheduled Time Jul 03 Peak Period Trains 100% 98% 7WL'Rd ute;>: StJB. Rat to 97% 85% 98% 76% 100% 99% RIv Rottfe 88% 81% O{.. Route 86% 88% 92 % i7ute.: 79% No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of terrnination. Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation . Riverside route OTP represents on -time performance against schedules temporarily modified for the UPRR tie replace ment program. Temporary schedules In effect 3/10/03.5/16/03 . 171 Riv/ I1LA 93% 73% 7;at 1615d:-. Tet Outbi 94% 85 % TO s 9 9 12 CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS JULY 2003 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IN L/OC R/F/L TOT AL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 1 7 21 0 6 9 2 1 47 15% Slow Orders/MOW 1 0 2 0 1 4 0 1 9 3%, Track/Switch 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 6 2% Dispatching 2 0 2 0 25 30 22 27 108 34% Mechanical 2 2 8 0 3 4 1 0 20 6% Freight Train 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 7 2% Amtrak Train 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1% Metrolink Meet/Turn 0 9 21 0 1 3 2 1 37 12% Vandalism 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Passenger(s) 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 1% SCRRA Hold Policy 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 3% Other 0 30 26 0 5 0 5 1 67 21% TOTAL 13 52 84 2 44 56 35 31 317 100 % Saturday SNB 1 5 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 12 Sunday SNB 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 13172 0307CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION JULY 2003 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOTAL % of TOT NO DELAY 382 376 433 221 183 334 195 146 2270 75.4% 1 MIN - 5 MIN 45 99 141 19 37 28 34 20 423 14.1 % 6MIN -10 MIN 9 26 37 2 12 20 16 15 137 4.6% 11 MIN - 20 MIN 3 22 32 0 15 20 14 7 113 3.8 % 21 MIN - 30 MIN 1 4 6 0 11 11 5 5 43 1 .4% GREATER THAN 30 MIN 0 0 9 0 6 5 0 4 24 0 .8% ANNULLED 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 0.1% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 440 527 658 242 264 418 264 197 3010 100% TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 58 151 225 21 81 84 69 51 740 24.6 % ,TRAINS DELAYED > 5 min 13 52 84 2 44 56 35 31 317 10.5 % 173 14 0307FREQ AGENDA ITEM 6T RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 3, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information Eric Haley, Executive Director THROUGH: SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update The weather in Washington can be rather unpleasant so it's a good time for a summer recess and an opportunity for Members of Congress to leave town and visit their districts or to take a vacation. That will change dramatically after Labor Day when Congress returns to work to finalize a number of important pieces of legislation. The reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Act will certainly be a priority and it is still uncertain whether it will be possible to approve a multi -year omnibus bill similar to ISTEA and TEA -21 or if the only action will be to pass a continuing resolution that maintains funding at current levels and delays the passage of a multi -year bill until 2004. State Update It's easy to see why California is considered a rather curious place by people from other parts of the country. Last month, the crisis was an unprecedented budget deficit that was exacerbated by the inability to approve a budget in time to meet state constitutional deadlines. Now that the state has a budget, the recall election has now moved front and center capturing headlines throughout the nation. AB 427 Signed by Governor While much of the focus has been on the recall, legislative work continues and one bill that was sponsored jointly by San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Commission has been signed by the Governor. Assembly Bill 427 by John Longville (D -Rialto) changes state law to remove a 20 -year limit on half -cent sales tax measures. This section of state law did not apply to RCTC when Measure "A" was extended because the enabling legislation that allowed Agenda Item 6T 174 Riverside County to approve Measure "A" did not specify a time limit for the tax program. The enabling legislation that was used by other counties including San Bernardino and Orange Counties did specify a 20 -year limit on sales tax measures. SANBAG is seeking a 30 -year extension of its current Measure "1" Program and needed this bill to allow for it. AB 496 Update For many Legislative Democrats the potential of a recall has raised the level of urgency to pass bills that would not be viewed favorably by another governor. One such bill is AB 496 by Assemblyman Lou Correa that would create a Santa Ana River Conservancy. At this writing, the bill is still stuck on the Suspense File of the Senate Appropriations Committee where a number of concerns have been raised on potential costs to the state. The Commission took action on June 11 to oppose the bill unless amended to recognize transportation projects in the Regional Transportation Plan. While a number of agencies including the County of Riverside, City of Corona, City of Moreno Valley, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino Associated Governments, County of Orange, Orange County Transportation Authority and Transportation Corridor Agencies have all taken similar stands against the bill, Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge remains an outspoken supporter of the legislation. Assemblyman Correa often cites Loveridge's support which has made it more challenging to convey the widespread opposition the bill faces in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The key date for AB 496 and many other bills is August 29, which is the last date that bills must be approved by fiscal committees in order to be taken up on the Floor of either house. The Legislature will end this first year of its two-year session on Friday, September 12. The Governor then has 30 days, or until October 12, to sign or veto bills that are passed. With the recall election scheduled for October 7, the political impact of each and every decision made by the Governor during that time will be heightened and will receive full scrutiny. Legislative Matrix The updated legislative matrix for both state and federal legislation is attached although it should be recognized that major changes and actions are likely to be taken on state bills during the second week of September in order to meet deadlines. This happens to coincide when many Commissioners will be in Sacramento for the League of Cities Annual Meeting. Attachments: 1) Federal Legislative Matrix 2) State Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 6T 175 RIVERSII- 'OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS I FEDERAL LEGISLATION — UPDATED Aug. 25, 2003 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adopti on H.R. 697 M illender- M cDonald (Los Angeles) Designates 1-710 as a new high -priority transportation corridor in ISTEA Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Subcommittee on Highways and Transit H.R. 1150 M iller (Brea) Directs the Secretary of Transportation to award grants to OCTA for the purchase of 46 buses for intercounty express bus service . Two of the identified routes serve Riverside County. Coauthored by Rep. Calvert - Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines H. R. 1617 Lipinski (Illinois) Establishes a National Rail Infrastructure Program to provide grants for railroad infrastructure that could include grade separations. Grants would be financed by excise taxes on railroad equipment and rail passenger tickets. Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and Means Committee H.R. 2180 McGovern (Mass.) Enacts the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act which would keep intact current federal restrictions on triple trucks and other longer combination vehicles on Interstate Highways and extend the restrictions to the entire Nation Highway System. Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure SUPPORT S 725 Bingaman (New Mexico) Tribal Transportation Program Improvement Act of 2003 — provides additional funding for Tribal transportation needs. Referred to Committee on Indian Affairs S 821 Harkin (Iowa) Establishes the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Act of 2003. Would authorize federal grants to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cells _ Referred to Committee on Natural Resources S 1140 Lautenberg (New Jersey) Enacts the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preserv ation Act which would keep intact current federal restrictions on triple trucks and other longer combination vehicles on Interstate Highways and extend the restrictions to the entire Nation Highway System. Referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works : SUPPORT F:\users\preprint\js\legmat. doc 176 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION — UPDATED Aug. 25, 2003 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Ad option AB 114 Nakano Permits hybrid -electric vehicles to use HOV Lanes regardless of the number of passengers in the car . Referred to Assembly Transportation AB 420 Longville Includes county welfare -to -work programs among alternative transportation methods in a county congestion management program. AB 427 Longville Changes enabling legislation that permits some counties (including San Bernardino and Orange but not Riverside) to impose half -cent transportation sales tax programs by eliminating the 20 -year time limit . Signed by the Governor on July 27 . Inland Empire Legislative Program Sponsored AB 467 Dutra Requires transit operators who have automated ticket machines with video instructions to also include an audio feature Signed int o law on July 31 AB 496 Correa Creates the Santa Ana River Conservancy to direct the management of public lands along the riv er. This could impact potential transportation pro jects on Routes 71 and 91. Passed Assembly 52- 24, passed Senate Natural Resources 5- 3. Referred to Senate Appropriations and still on Suspense File. OPPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED 6/10/03 AB 1289 Benoit Would allow additional franchises for privately owned toll roads and would prohibit the state from granting non -co mpetition clauses in order to support the toll facility. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee ACA 7 Dutra Reduces voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committees SUPPORT ACA 9 Levine Allows local jurisdictions to approv e special taxes for infrastructure projects with only a majority vote. The bill includes a number of restrictions and specifications on how this could be imposed. Passed Assembly Local Go vernment and Appropriations Committees ACA 11 Levine Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local bond measures for specified infrastructure projects. Passed Assembly Local Government and Appropriations Committees F:\users\pr \js\legmat.doc 177 Legislate / Auth Descripti on Bill Status Position _ D of Board aptio n ACA 14 Steinberg _ Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local special taxes for either general infrastructure needs or specified housing, open space and neighborhood enhancement projects. Passed Assembly Local Government Appropriations Committee SB 18 Burton Establishes changes to the CE QA project for traditional tribal cultural sites A different version of the bill was approved by the Senate. It has been referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and will probably become a two-year bill OPPOSE 7/28/03 SB 87 Hollingsworth Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula. Passed Senate 40-0 Passed Assembly Transportation Committee and referred to Appropriations Committee SUPPORT 6/10/03 SB 234 Oiler Allows persons with disabilities driving a vehicle with a disabled placard or license plate to use an HOV lane regardless of the occupancy of the vehicle. Failed Assembly Transportation SB 380 McClintock and Murray Requires Caltrans to evaluate and establish standards for all existing HOV lanes in accordance with specified criteria. Furthermore Caltrans would be required to conduct a traffic model study comparing the alternatives of establishing an HOV lane, establishing a HOT Lane, adding a mix ed flow lane or not doing anything at all when considering new HOV Lanes. _ Passed Senate Transportation Committee and is now Senate Appropriations Suspense File. SB 427 Dunn Spot bill regarding Caltrans procedure when acquiring homes for highway projects. The final text and intent of this bill has yet to be determined. No action taken SB 541 Torlakson Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it increases with inflation. Failed passage in Senate Transportation . Reconsideration has been granted . SB 585 Soto States need for statewide general obligation bond for impacts of freight movement. No dollar figure or details on eligible expenditures have been included. (Spot bill) No action taken F:\users\preprint\js\legmat. doc 178 Legislati on/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 701 Florez Authorizes the sale of State General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $4 .55 billion for air pollution reduction and control efforts which would include reducing emissions from farming, purchasing clean fuel vehicles, advancing propane technology, and biomass to energy programs. If approved, it would go to state voters in March 2004. Passed Senate Environmental Quality Committee, referred to Senate Appropriations Committee SB 708 Florez Makes changes to the California Smog Check program which would expand the repair assistance program and increase the fine for unlawful motor vehicle exhaust. Passed Senate 26-13, passed Assembly Transportati on, and passed by Appropriations SB 795 Karnette Allows Service Authorities for Freeway Emergencies (SAFES) to use excess call box revenues to operate the Freeway Service Patrol Passed Senate 21-12, passed Assembly Transportation Committee and Assembly Appropriations SB 957 McClintock Authorizes the Governor to declare a "traffic congestion emergency" and requires Caltrans to prepare a report on transportation delay Failed Senate Transportati on, reconsideration granted. WATCH 5/14/03 SB 981 Soto and Romero Imposes a 40 cent per barrel fee on oil refined in California to pay for air quality programs Passed Senate Environmental Quality Committee and referred to Senate Revenue and Taxation . It is a two- year bill. SCA 2 Torlakson Would lower the threshold on half -cent sales tax measures to a sirnple majority but would require that at least 25 percent of the revenues be spent on "smart growth planning." Passed Senate Transportation and Constitutional Amendments Committees. SEEK AMENDMENTS SCA 7 M urray Would require that all loans made to the General Fund from transportation sources such as the STIP be repaid with interest Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending SUPPORT 5/14/03 F:\users\prf ` \js\legmat.doc 179 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 3, 2003 Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: 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 7 180 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 environment& 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 statt. 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 7 181 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 7 182 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: • 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 7 183 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 7 184 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 7 185 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 Project Request for Proposals is issued Proposals are Due Short List Notification Consultant interviews are held Recommendations to Committee Recommendations to Commission for Award Anticipated Notice to Proceed Date 09/04/03 10/16/03 10/30/03 11/13/03 11/24/03 12/10/03 01/12/04 Attachment: Scope of Work for the Engineering and Environmental Efforts Agenda Item 7 186 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 7 187 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 ElSiEiR, 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 7 188 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 7 189 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 7 190 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 7 191 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 be a covered action under the SAMP. Agenda Item 7 192 AGENDA ITEM 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS PRESENTATION / HANDOUT FROM A►RT CASSEL Comments Cards: Art Cassel spoke on the behalf of the attached O V V 0 _ = 0 = +7 O L O 0 .0 V 41 v Try 0 a O d a y > H H 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 4 '°* ' h'".. -• • TYPICAL FOUR (4) LANE CROS S- SECTION 5' PLAN TER WITH G UA RC RAILS 1.1" Wll;f_ LAN( S. ; -'J:11 MEINAN WITFI,-. 41.5 rr[ Ir.:•;L 1 32' ROW T 9' MUL TIP URPO SE TRAIL. WITH PVC RAI L FENCE CAJALC O ROAD TY PICAL, SIX (6) LANE CROSS-SECTION 15 ' PLANTER WITH GLIAR D R AILS. P AR K 12' (3,6M) LAN E 12' (3 .6M) LANE 12' C -EM) LAN ,: 0 EME N PA RK 14' WIDE 1 ANI] SCAPED MEDIAN WIT! I GLIARI] RAIL 1 56' ROW 2 6' MU LTIPLIRPQS E T RAIL W 1111 PVC RAI L FE NCE CAJALCO ROAD TYPICA L ELEVAT ED FOUR (4) LANE C R oS S -S E CT I O N OUTSIDE BAR RIER Ft INSIDE BARRIER 12' (3.6M) EMER PARK 1 2' (3 .6 M) L ANE 1 2' (3.5M) LANE Y 1 0' E. MER PhF. K OU TSIDE BARRIER 1 2' 1 2' D' EM Ev. (3.6M) ( 3. SM) PARK l LANE L AN E 12 ' (3. 6M) EME R PAR K r T 28' CENTER MEDIAN (UNP LANTEP) 120• ROW CAJALCO ROAD lbw T i trIrvim w TYPICAL FIVE (5) LA NE CROSS-SECTION 1-1 5 TO LA SIERRA AVE OUTSIDE B ARRIE R EAST BOUND CE NTE R BAR RIER WEST BO UND 15' ' 1 O" EME RE COVE RY PARK 1 2' (3.6M) T RU CK LANE (3.6M) ' LANE 12 ' (3.6M) LA NE D' CMEFI PAicK 1 O' EM EC P ARK 1 2' (3.6M, LA NE 12' (3 .6M) LAN E 14' CEN TER MEDIAN (U r pLA WM:3) 1 4 4' R OW 1 O' E EN PAR K OUTSIDE BARRIER 1 5' RE COVERY CAJALCO ROAD Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: c 1 AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): i / 1 Af T ink NO CAJAL-co - AVO I/3 6v04vDo0- NAME: Jtn.i CAmPi3ELL_ DATE: 2e e ADDRESS: 0043 2 i pcea TREE , oAL) TEL. NO: 789 -Z89O REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 1 COL 1 C NAME: (c, DATE: ' ADDRESS: 0-51 M NADL,0 TEL. NO: ( Y- )o 50 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 7— 14J -t9 C NAME: f rJ' C f' DATE: ADDRESS: Alt?,t6-,,rte ,ti//`f4.,4e4. TEL. NO: 7,5V -3"376 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL. NO: RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: r_.� C ( rj-11 DATE: ADDRESS: 271) -6 R U S �, TEL. NO: /0 5 / 9 u/ ({(45,-a .- REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC , S SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: DATE: / ADDRESS: TEL. NO: F0?-•?160•-0��` ; REPRESENTING: !�"y J -rXt1/ BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: ✓ PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: b/ J , /y, ewe z DATE: 9-3-e3 ADDRESS: REPRESENTING: I/ l C r! / TEL. NO: 575- 2-(PC[CP LS,46 BUSINESS r� ADDRESS: 172 9' rt//J TEL. NO: 7 77-012) 7 RCTC 7/99 / Ver.Re C/ Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMEN BJE T OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S,„)_, AND SUBJECT(S): /I-/ 1(c/ /S?-Av - N'4 3 /4"t( :.5 NAME: DATE: ADDRESS: TEL TEL, NO e1) 3S > -4a5› REPRESENTING: ,V BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC Vz SUBJECT OF ' COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: L Jr t • L AGENDA ITEM NO(S) 6,dah AND SUBJECT(S): a ik t<J NAME: Y*'+' DATE: ? /0 ADDRESS:/7 99 J4'1C TEL. NO: 90‘t `)/0-05 -44 REPRESENTING: ose* BUSINESS ADDRESS: L-414..._ TEL. NO: RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board /L AO O SUBJECT OF COMMEN . PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: ADDRESS: OA;eP7' I f 6eltig_e24,,tse DATE: c? ----3-1-3 REPRESENTING: TEL. NO: BUSINESS ADDRESS: E/0, C, r ` TEL. NO: ';�W RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board oT1 PUBLIC ` SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: /%,164 // e(2. . /J' . DATE: '-3-03 ADDRESS: /aidVe TEL. NO: 29J35 /A-2/ REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: )/,I,,a/G AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: 4,7/Ll/ , 10..9,0 ./lam✓ DATE: 9-J-02 ADDRESS/6.4 7) flee 04/e TEL. NO: 7,”---/----14-1 REPRESENTING: }9/1- L- "%'C¢ JP BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): ` NAME: L SG�k('i e_ DATE: -L ADDRESS: i toMIS cat,o .RAQ, TEL. NO: - 4 Z 83 REPRESENTING: \(2A- Rte) l e_ BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: I u 0% W v/ e c DATE: 9" 3 • O ADDRESS: /' S- f,�.z,,, jar � � /).( TEL. NO: 7 03 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF a oxsz. COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: J/ /'o AGENDA ITEM NO(S) , A AND SUBJECT(S): v`e v% NAME: 71b),5, -/n /n DATE: 9- 3 -0(7 ADDRESS: /9f/Q 6s i% 4 TEL. N0(9.0 7 -O 79 11 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 S TEL. NO: (goy) %88-87% 2 AGENDA ITEM 8 JUMP-START Reversing Southern California's Economic Decline An Economic Stimulus Package proposed by Southern California Association of Governments Economic Analysis Section Community and Economic Development Planning and Policy Department Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) June 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary 3 The Proposal 3 Grounds for Action 4 Current economic status —a recovery without jobs 4 Major uncertainties in the regional economic outlook 4 The state of the region: losing ground to other regions 5 in both income and competitiveness Declining SCAG income and the state budget 6 Action: Privately Funded Transportation Infrastructure Investments 7 Why Goods Movement and Maglev? 7 The Package and Its Economic Impacts 9 Impact on Average Wages and Per Capita Income 12 Long-term Perspectives 13 Next Steps 13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 SCAG Region Income and Payroll Rankings Among the 17 U.S. CMSAs 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Economic Stimulus Through Transportation Investment 11 Table 2 Overall Economic Impacts of the Regional Stimulus Package 12 Table 3 Privately Funded Transportation Infrastructure Investment Projects Beyond 2010 14 LIST OF MAPS MAP 1 2025 RTP Plan Goods Movement Projects 15 MAP 2 2025 RTP Plan Maglev Projects 16 2 Operation Jump —Start Enabling Private -Sector -Funded Transportation Infrastructure Investment An Economic Stimulus Package Proposed by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Summary Moving forward the implementation and construction of major goods movement projects recommended in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and ensuring timely completion of the Maglev (initial operating segment—IOS), together will inject over $26 billion dollars into the SCAG region economy between 2005 and 2010. This stimulus to the regional economy, primarily through privately funded transportation infrastructure investment, will create 370,000 jobs by 2010. Furthermore, it will generate much larger increases in personal income than traditional government spending or taxes cut programs, because jobs associated with transportation infrastructure investment are relatively high paying. The core strategy of this economic stimulus package is to allow the private sector to establish property rights in transportation infrastructure projects, to invest in those projects and, eventually, to earn decent returns from the investments through user benefits creation and toll collection. Implementing this package will require enabling legislation at both the Federal and State levels to allow and encourage private sector investments in transportation infrastructure. The Proposal The key elements of the SCAG proposal to stimulate the regional economy through investment in transportation infrastructure are: ❖ Total project investment: $26 billion, or $6.4 billion a year. ❖ Time frame: 2005 to 2010; complete all construction by 2010. ❖ Creation of 370,000 relatively high -paid jobs in the region over the six -year construction period, an average of 62,000 jobs per year ❖ Transportation infrastructure investments comprise: ➢ Goods movement projects: a user -supported regional truckways system, rail capacity improvements and separation of grade crossings > IOS of Maglev—from West Los Angeles to Ontario Airport ❖ Private sector financing for the bulk of the project costs. Preliminary financial analyses show that these projects are all self -sustainable based on users' benefits and hence their willingness to pay through toll charges. ❖ Enabling legislation at both the state and federal levels is required to: > Authorize public -private partnership arrangements for the purpose of financing a regional toll -based transportation system by: (a) enabling agreements with private entities in support of revenue generating projects like toll facilities, and (b) allowing complete access to the tax-exempt bond 3 market (tax-exempt private activity bonds for transportation infrastructure development) ➢ Enable public/private venture entities to further capitalize on innovative financing provisions in TEA -21, including the TIFIA program. ➢ Delineate a legal and regulatory framework for an implementing agency or agencies with specific responsibilities for planning, construction, maintenance, toll collection and enforcement. ➢ Permit tax credit bond financing to support rail capacity improvement in Southern California. Grounds for Action The Southern California Association of Governments, as the region's planning agency, has many compelling reasons for proposing and promoting this economic stimulus package. Among them: Current economic status —a recovery without jobs The most obvious reason for action right now is the state of the national, state and regional economies. While the 2001 recession was relatively mild and short compared with most post-war recessions, the economy continues to lose employment. Job creation is now the number one priority in the intensive debate over a tax cut package to stimulate the national economy. Like the U.S., the region could adopt its own economic stimulus package to bring itself out of this "jobless" recovery. The employment level in the six -county SCAG region at the end of 2002 was a quarter million less than what SCAG had predicted two years ago. The employment gap between the actual and projected job levels will become even larger, growing to 400,000 jobs by the end of this year. Major uncertainties in the regional economic outlook Currently California is trapped with unprecedented budget deficits. No matter what the eventual solution is, it will certainly have a major impact on state and local government employment. Additionally, the region's motion picture industry, an important regional job generator, is vulnerable. It is an integral part of the entertainment industry, which, along with airlines, travel, lodging, amusement, etc., has been detrimentally affected by 9/11 and the war with Iraq. Finally, but not least, the emerging health risks from SARS have caused business in a number of areas in the region to plummet. In parts of the parts of the San Gabriel Valley, for example, the international trade, travel, tourism, and restaurant business has dropped to only half its normal volume. The full impact of SARS is just starting to unfold. 4 The state of the region: losing ground to other regions in both income and competitiveness Figure 1 presents two rankings for the SCAG region among all 17 U.S. Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSA) since 1969. The bars show SCAG region's ranking in terms of per capita income, while the line represents its ranking in average wages per job. In this graph, higher numbers (bar or line) on the left scale denote poorer performance, or a worse ranking. Figure 1 shows that SCAG region's economic performance was relatively good throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Since 1987, however, the ranking of the region's per capita income among major U.S. metropolitan areas has shown horrendous deterioration, dropping to 160' place —second to the last place —in four of the past six years. The slippage in the SCAG region's per capita income ranking over the last 13 years has signaled relentless deterioration in the region's relative economic performance and competitiveness. The other measurement, the ranking of SCAG region average wages per job among the same 17 CMSAs followed a pattern similar to that of per capita income. Generally speaking, the SCAG region's performance in terms of average payroll per job has worsened since the late 1980s and early 1990s. The last recession in Southern California ended almost nine years ago. Since then the region has added over one million jobs (1,000,160 jobs). Nevertheless, the SCAG region has yet to show any sign that it is ready to regain the ground lost to other CMSAs during the recession years. On the contrary, during the last nine years, this region continuously created lower and lower -quality jobs. Pays for these jobs were below average job payrolls in other major metro areas. The declines in the region's competitiveness during the last few years, particularly after the last recession, were more troublesome; not only has the pace of decline been much faster than in the previous quarter century (1969 to 1994), it resulted entirely from the economy and job market side. Thus, very weak job markets, near term economic negatives and uncertainties, and long term erosion of regional competitiveness all call for immediate actions to stimulate the regional economy. All southern Californians —private businesses, the public sector, and the community at large —have to work in partnership to meet this economic challenge. The region needs an economic stimulus package now to: • Grow jobs • Grow jobs faster than job growth in other places • Grow jobs faster than population growth • Grow high -wage, high -quality jobs • Lay the long term foundation to develop basic industries 5 Figure 1 SCAG Region's Rank Among 17 U.S. CMSAs by Per Capita Income and Average Payroll Per Job 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Per Capita Personal Income —'l—Average Payroll Per Job L J� CO W CO CD O ID CO CD CD t0 CO CD CO ID O W fD CO 1D CO CD O CO W fO <0 CO CO CO CD CO 00 0 V - V V V V V V V V CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ID fO <D CJ CO CO CO CO CD 0 0 CO O N W A N CO V CO CD O N W A N Of V CO CJ O N W . CT CO V CO CO 0 Declining SCAG income and the state budget As everyone in California knows, a $38 billion state budget deficit looms ahead. Since personal income tax receipts account for about 48 percent of state General Fund revenues and since the SCAG region represents roughly half of California's economy, it comes as no surprise that the weakness in the region's income picture is exacerbating Governor Davis' fiscal headache. During the last decade, for example, median household income in the SCAG region actually declined (by more than $1,600) while median household income in both the state as a whole and the nation rose. A "What if?" scenario: In 1987, SCAG was ranked fourth among the 17 CMSAs in terms of per capita income. In that year, state personal income tax revenues generated by the SCAG region were $6.9 billion, or just over 49 percent of the total income tax take. If the region had maintained its 4th place ranking in per capita income, it would be generating $23 billion this year in personal tax revenues for the state, or $5.3 billion dollars more than it is currently sending to Sacramento. That incremental revenue would be enough to reduce the state's prospective budget deficit by 17 percent! 6 Action: Privately Funded Transportation Infrastructure Investments Simply in one sentence, this type of investment is the most effective way to go! The latest U.S. recession, in 2001, was unique in modern history. Unlike most post-war recessions, which resulted generally from the Fed's over tightening of monetary policy, the 2001 recession was caused by a sudden collapse of capital spending (investment). The economics of privately funded transportation infrastructure investment works to benefit the economy in exactly the same way as traditional private sector capital spending does. Through the multiplier effect, private investment in transportation infrastructure creates high paying jobs during the investment (construction) phase; as a result of the accelerator effect, the benefits (time saving and productivity improvement) will propel the project forward and enable it to become self-sustaining financially. A privately funded transportation infrastructure investment strategy may face regulatory and institutional barriers. However, unlike other private sector capital investments, the inherent risks are minimal from a marketing perspective. The congestion levels in the region's transportation system are the best evidence of unmet transportation demand and market potential. The benefits of traditional private sector capital spending are usually limited mostly to the firm or industry in which the investment is made. By contrast, privately funded transportation infrastructure investments will generate very large external benefits. SCAG proposes that a concerted effort should be made to "internalize" these external benefits to the society as a whole, such that returns to private sector capital can be boosted. Following are examples of major external benefits expected from transportation infrastructure investment. ❖ Increase overall productivity by creating more capacity and reducing system- wide congestion ❖ Improve quality of life through congestion relief and emission reductions ❖ Increase health benefits through emission reductions ❖ Serve the long term regional goal of promoting economic development in the outlying areas Why Goods Movement and Maglev? Goods Movement System: The Southern California region is facing a crisis in freight transportation, characterized by dramatic growth in rail and truck traffic, limited transportation funding, and high infrastructure improvement costs. Projections of long term population and employment growth, along with increases in international and domestic trade volumes, all point to worsening congestion and the potential for "gridlock", an occurrence that would have a serious impact on the economic well being of both the region and the nation. Projected growth in the volume of goods movements threatens to swamp Southern California's transportation system, causing gridlock situations that will impede the flow of freight and increase the cost of all goods. Without an increase in goods movement infrastructure investments, producers and consumers will have to pay more for goods and services, restricting future levels of economic growth. By value, Southern California accommodates 30% of the nation's waterborne trade, and 11% of the nation's total international trade. This activity greatly benefits the nation as a whole, while Southern California incurs a disproportionate share of the burden. Contributions to national prosperity should be compensated with national resources. More investment is urgently needed to maximize railroad capacities through the addition of more tracks and to mitigate congestion through development of grade crossings and grade separation. In addition, Most of the region's freeways and local arterials will be subject to severe delays caused, in part, by mushrooming truck traffic —increasing shipment time and costs and reducing the reliability of motor freight. Trucks are expected to carry the majority of goods traveling less than 800 miles. There is almost no capacity to deal with projected increases in deliveries. The region will be hard pressed to maintain existing levels of service for moving goods, let alone handle the expected growth. Without the ability to move goods efficiently, the vitality and competitiveness of the Southern California economy will be impaired even further. Southern California's existing transportation system provides for reliable and efficient movement of goods, thereby contributing to the nation's economic prosperity in the form of greater industrial productivity and consumer purchasing power. In 2000, our calculations indicate that the efficient movement of international trade into and through the Southern California region benefited the nation by $452 billion. IOS of the Maglev System: The Intra-Regional High Speed Rail Maglev, using magnetic levitation (Maglev) technology, would connect major activity and transportation centers in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The initial operating segment (IOS) of the system would be comprised of one line connecting West Los Angeles to Ontario and is anticipated to be implemented by the private sector in the year 2010. Without a regional airport in El Toro, the region needs to further decentralize its future growth in air cargo and air passenger traffic to its regional airports in the northern and eastern portions of the region. The Maglev system thus becomes more important and critical to the success of our decentralized regional aviation system. 8 By 2025, the system would be completed with the three remaining lines, Palmdale to LAX, Palmdale to the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT) and LAUPT to Orange County and San Bernardino (see Map 3, p. 17). The Maglev program also envisions longer -term connections to San Diego, a connection between San Bernardino and Palmdale via a high desert alignment and interlining with the proposed California High -Speed Rail System. If the State is successful at adopting a high-speed rail system, SCAG's Regional Council will support the north corridor to Palmdale and the south inland corridor. When fully deployed, the Intra-Regional Maglev System could serve as the foundation of a 50 -year regional surface transportation system that would offer a functional and practical transportation alternative as significant to this Region as the freeway network developed during the last 50 years. The Maglev Project Description document demonstrates that the Intra-Regional System could be constructed and deployed through a public -private partnership structure administered through a public agency, a joint powers authority (JPA), or a public non-profit (PNP) format using a number of innovative and traditional funding mechanisms. The future of the Maglev effort will depend largely on two factors: private sector interest in financing the system and how the system performs based on SCAG's performance criteria. The Package and Its Economic Impacts The regional economic stimulus package consists of three major project categories: User supported dedicated truck ways, Rail Improvements and Grade Separation, and the IOS of Maglev. The Maglev project was described in some detail in the previous section. A brief description of the other two project categories is given below, while the economic impacts of all three components are summarized in Table 1. User -supported dedicated truck ways Trucks support the region's manufacturing industry and are essential to the intra- regional distribution of consumer goods. Major freeways that could significantly benefit from separate truck facilities include 1-710, SR60, and 1-15 (see Map 1 on p. 15). Currently these corridors carry high volumes of truck traffic, which contribute to substantial peak hour delay and unsafe traffic conditions related to the interweaving of trucks and automobiles. The proposed truck ways are assumed to be separate lanes constructed along the outside of the freeway with limited direct access to and from arterials. These truck lanes can serve as a system for moving commercial trucks in a more efficient and less congested manner. Truck lanes will be grade separated from existing freeway ramps to minimize conflict between vehicles. Where sufficient 9 right-of-way is not readily available, new mixed -flow or HOV lanes could be placed on aerial structures so that existing lane space could be utilized for additional truck facilities. The proposal envisions two tolled truck lanes in each direction, which is viewed as the optimal configuration for truck facilities. The estimated preliminary total cost of the three truck lane projects included in this proposal is $16.5 billion ($2.2 billion for 1-710 truck lanes, $4.3 billion for the SR -60 truck lanes, and $10 billion for the 1-15 truck lanes). Rail Improvements and Grade Separation Regional rail freight movements often conflict with highway commuter and goods movement traffic. With the anticipated increase in port traffic and total train movements of all kinds, substantial additional delay for passenger vehicles and trucks can be expected at grade crossings. To avoid these delays, grade separations carrying arterials under or over rail lines carrying substantial amounts of freight from the ports are recommended along critical routes such as the "East-West Corridor", including the Los Angeles-Orangethorpe-Riverside rail freight corridor (Orange County Gateway). The regional grade crossing improvement program included in this proposal calls for investment of $2.2 billion by 2010 (see Map 2, p. 16). Complementing the projects to improve grade crossings between Los Angeles and the Inland Empire on the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern -Santa Fe main lines is a proposed expansion of railroad capacity on these lines to enhance the ability to move both passengers and freight with a minimum of delay. These capacity enhancements would make it possible to maintain the competitiveness of the rail mode for long -haul, time -sensitive freight shipments, including marine port and domestic traffic, while simultaneously mitigating environmental impacts on communities traversed by the lines. In fact, since little or no environmental impact assessment would be required under existing law, these rail construction projects could get underway quickly, providing the initial stimulative boost to the economy. The economic stimulus package calls for $3.4 billion in investments —funded by issuing tax credit bonds —to make these rail facility capacity improvements a reality by 2010. Finally, The 55 -mile IOS of the Maglev described earlier will require private sector investments of $6.2 billion. Economic impacts from stimulus package investments estimated using the IMPLAN1 model are presented in Table 2. It should be noted that the economic 1 The SCAG IMPLAN Input -Output Model (Developed by Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.) is a PC -based economic impact assessment modeling system, which can provide a full range of economic impacts through inter -industrial interactions and household activities. IMPLAN allows the user to easily build economic models to estimate all the direct, indirect and induced employment, output and income impacts of economic changes in their states, counties, or communities. 10 impact estimates shown here include only the construction jobs and wages generated in the SCAG region during the investment phases of the projects contained in the proposed stimulus package. The gains in productivity, improvements in congestion, air quality, health benefits, and other long-term economic benefits attributable to these projects after their completion are not included in our estimates. Moreover, the economic benefits from investments of this magnitude will not be confined to the SCAG region; positive state and national economic impacts will also be generated. TABLE 1 ECONOMIC STIMULUS THROUGH TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS Goods Movement Projects I. SCAG Region Dedicated Trucltways system Truck Lanes Total Investments ($Million) Length Miles) Lane Miles 1-710 $2,166 18 86 SR -60 $4,300 37.8 151.2 1-15 $10,066 86 344 Summary $16,533 141.8 581.2 II. Rail Capacity Investment Total Investments ($Million) Railroad Infrastructure Investment $1,200 Investment in Grade Separations of Highway -Rail Crossings $2,200 Summary $3.400 The Intra-Regional Hiah Sneed Rail Maglev System Initial Operating Segment (I.0.S.) Total Investments ($Million) Length (Miles) West Los Angeles -- Ontario $6,233 55 Summary $6,233 Grand Total ($Million) $26,166 As indicated in Table 2, the region is expected to gain a total of almost 370,000 jobs between 2005 and 2010 or, an annual average of 62,000 jobs from implementation of these privately funded transportation infrastructure projects. Average wages for those jobs generated by the projects range between 12 and 28 percent higher than existing average salaries paid per job, depending on where the investment is made in the region. To put these investments and employment impacts into perspective, the current preliminary 2004 RTP Socioeconomic Forecast projects that the SCAG Region 11 will add 120,000 jobs annually during the 2000-2010 period. The additional 370,000 jobs from these private -sector -funded projects will make up for the shortfall between projected and actual levels of jobs by 2004. Equally significant, the transportation investments called for by the stimulus package will basically double the amount of regional transportation funding (traditionally comprising only sales and gasoline taxes) between 2005 and 2010. The investment amount —$4.5 billion per annum —is equivalent to the amount of venture capital investment the region has lost each year since 2000. TABLE 2 OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE REGIONAL STIMULUS PACKAGE Truckways Rail Investment Maglev-I.O.S. Total Emp oyment Impacts (Jobs) MINIIMENEMEINIMI 123,306 24,921 45,687 193 914 51,824 13,689 25,096 9Q 609 51,909 11,265 20,652 83 826 227,040 49,876 91,434 368 350 Income Impacts (Million) Direct Indirmnt Indiirpd Teal 4,424.2 923.1 1,692.2 7 039 5 1,999.7 492.0 902.0 3 393 8 1,333.5 289.4 530.5 2 153 4 7,757.4 1,704.5 3,124.7 12.586.7 Emolovment Imparts, Share by County (Percent) Imperial 0.3% Los Angeles 33.2% Orange 29.3% Riverside 15.7% San Bernardino 18.4% Ventura 3_,2% SOURCE: SCAG IMPLAN INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL Avq Proj Wages/Existing Avq Salaries (%) Imperial 112.1% Los Angeles 112.7% Orange 116.3% Riverside 128.3% San Bernardino 125.2% Ventura 119.8% Impact on Average Wages and Per Capita Income The economic stimulus package described above is designed to address the challenges of a "jobless" recovery, short-term economic uncertainties, and the loss of ground in per capita income and average wages to other major metro areas. The 370,000 jobs with above average wages expected from the stimulus package will address the needed job creation and downside economic risks between now and 2010. However, the package only serves to put the brakes on the secular decline in average wages and per capita income. It has limited ability to reverse these downward trends significantly; i.e., to push the region's rankings back to where they were in the late 1970s and 1980s. Our simulations on jobs, wages, per capita income, and state taxes indicate that by 2010 the 370,000 high -paying jobs created via the economic stimulus package will have the following impacts: 12 ❖ Increase the region's average wages per job expressed as a percentage of the 17 CMSA average by 1.2 percentage points, to 91.4% from 90.2% in 2001. • Improve the region's ranking in average wages among the major metro areas by one place, to 10th place from the 11th place that the region has held since 1998. ❖ Raise per capita income in the region by about $230, or $920 for a family of four. While this improvement will narrow the per capita income gap with other major metro areas, it will not be large enough to change the region's ranking in per capita income. ❖ It will take over 20 years and more than 3 million high -paying jobs to noticeably improve the region's rankings in terms of average wages per job and per capita income. Over this time period the average wage per job would be raised by almost $2,900 per year and total wages in the region would be increased by $21.5 billion. Long-term Perspectives "Operation Jump -Start" is a short- to medium -term fix. In order to reverse the secular decline in income and competition and address other long-term economic challenges, the region needs a long-term approach. "Operation Jump -Start" could serve as one of the major pillars of a long-term regional economic development strategy. Eventually, however, regional competitiveness will require completion of a circle, or ring, of high-speed transportation surrounding the major urban areas in the region and linking its key population centers, airports, and port facilities. As shown in Table 3, the long-term vision of the Regional Transportation Plan is to accomplish this with the Maglev system. The completion of these projects beyond 2010 and the associated improvements in productivity, quality of life, and congestion reduction will enable the Southern California economy to extend the trends put in motion by "Operation Jump -Start." But transportation, as important as it is to long term mobility, employment, and income creation, is not the only area of investment needed to bring the SCAG region back to its previous high rankings in average wages and per capita income. We will also need to explore other economic development strategies such as support for regional industry clusters, workforce training and development, and investment in communities in need. Next Steps: ❖ Complete preliminary financial feasibility analysis for projects described above. ❖ Define implementation agencies' legal functions and responsibilities ❖ Market projects to the public/private stakeholders ❖ Seek legislative support at the regional, state, and federal levels. 13 ❖ Revise the goods movement component of the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan and economic development strategy accordingly. ❖ Assess and quantify long term economic development benefits to North Los Angeles County, Inland area, and the high desert region. TABLE 3 Privately Funded Transportation Infrastructure Investment Projects Beyond 2010 Regional Maglev System: Capital Costs Construction ($Million) Period West Los Angeles to LAX Ontario to March Inland Port LAUPT to Central Orange County LAX to Palmdale Airport LAX to Irvine Ground Transit Center Orange County to San Bernardino San BernardinoNictorville Victorville/Palmdale March Inland Port/San Diego Sub -Total Regional Light Rail and Toll Roads $1,253 2010-2013 $1,253 2010-2013 $3,500 2013-2015 $8,200 2016-2020 $7,400 2021-2025 $7,500 2025-2029 n.a. 2030+ n.a. 2030+ n.a. 2030+ $29,107 Metro Greenline to LAX $168 2010 SR -91 Toll Lanes from SR -241 to SR -71 $225 2020 Orange Toll Corridors $3,400 2030 Sub -Total $3,793 14 MAP 1 �.. 15 iftla smea �� �rnprommr:a (mtvnq apes CAT:Ang Urns s kkgr1 ;f, 1y C Neer Lre 15 MAP 2 East-West Corridor currently operating at capacity Single and double tracks account for over 80% of system 16 MAP 3 17 CONTACT: Don Rhodes, 213/236-1840 Jeff Lustgarten, 323/466-3445 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 6, 2003 eration JUII P -START Reversing Southern California's Economic Decline SCAG UNVEILS MAJOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN *** SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Executive Director Mark Pisano Outlines "Operation Jump -Start" — A Public/Private Partnership Plan to Boost Economy Through Road and Rail Improvements. BREA, CA — The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) outlined a $26.1 billion regional economic revitalization plan today that would accelerate a series of road and rail improvements to create thousands of high -paying jobs in the short-term and build the infrastructure necessary for Southern California to ultimately become the world's leading international trade center. Executive Director Mark Pisano unveiled the framework for SCAG's new "Operation Jump -Start" initiative during the agency's annual Regional Council Retreat, which brings together elected officials from throughout its six -county region. According to SCAG's 2002 "State of the Region Report," which details declining incomes and stagnating employment, the Southland now ranks as one of the nation's poorest metropolitan areas. To reverse this trend, "Operation Jump -Start" puts forth a three -pronged approach to solving the region's economic woes through the development of dedicated truck lanes on some of the area's most crowded freeways ($16.5 billion); railway improvements that would allow more trains to transport goods from Southland ports throughout the region and the nation ($3.4 billion); and a high-speed magnetic levitation (Maglev) train system that would provide a major commuter alternative and facilitate a truly regional airport system ($6.2 billion). "If Southern California's ports are the heart of its economy, then our freeways and railways are the arteries that must remain flowing in order to deliver the goods and jobs that nourish our economy," said Pisano. "What the State of the Region Report showed us was that our arteries are clogged, resulting in gridlocked freeways, unemployment rates that are consistently one of the highest in the nation and the highest poverty rate among the top nine largest metro regions in the United States." "Operation Jump -Start" will serve as a springboard for SCAG as it begins a coalition -building effort this summer with the California Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; local chambers of commerce and business associations; and key transportation leaders and organizations like the Motor Freight Carriers Association. Pisano added that he anticipates having a more thoroughly developed plan in time for SCAG's annual economic forecast conference in the fall. — more — Details of the preliminary plan include: ® Acceleration of infrastructure investment with privately -funded, revenue -backed projects. ® Creation of higher paying construction, manufacturing, trade and transportation -related jobs that will raise the SCAG region's per capita income, which has fallen from the fourth highest rate among the 17 largest metropolitan areas in 1970 to 16th in 2000. Initial estimates indicate that as many as 370,000 jobs might be created by "Operation Jump -Start" over six years and $26 billion injected into the SCAG region's economy between 2005 and 2010. .9, Development of dedicated truck tollways along the 6o, 710 and 15 Freeways that would relieve the pressure on freeways used by commuters, decrease gridlock and decrease air pollution. The costs of tax-exempt revenue bonds would be recouped through a per mile fee to use the lanes. ha. Expansion of Southern California's east -west railway corridor and the addition of signals, rail yards and grade separations to increase the number of trains the network can handle and decrease delays at rail crossings and the resulting air pollution. The additional container fees that result from the increased rail capacity would pay for the project. t Development of a regional airport system connected by a high-speed Maglev system to relieve pressure on Los Angeles International Airport while meeting the projected growth in both passenger and cargo demand. The system would be financed through tax-exempt bonds and federal loans that would be repaid through fees built in to Maglev rider fares. "Many Southern Californians do not fully realize the ever-increasing importance that trade and commerce play in our current and future economy. Southern California's position as a national and international commerce center is totally reliant on our ability to develop the road, rail and air infrastructure. We need to keep that commerce flowing and growing," said Pisano. "Without a plan like "Operation Jump -Start" to provide us with both short-term stimulus and long-term economic viability, businesses will leave our region in droves in search of other areas that can meet their needs. We cannot wait until it is too late." For more information about the work of the Southern California Association of Governments, please visit www.scag.ca.gov. 029/03 # # # 06/06 1710 6.03 Reversing Souihern Coliio.nia'i Ec.nomic Decline Q&A What is Operation Jump -Start? Operation Jump -Start is a bold new initiative that will move the SCAG region forward through investment in critical infrastructure that will quickly improve surface transportation, enhance goods movement and revitalize the Southland's economic position. What will Operation Jump -Start accomplish? It will position the region as the nation's pre-eminent trade gateway via the development of facilities that improve the movement of goods and people. It will achieve multiple goals — higher - income job creation, congestion relief, improved air quality and enhanced quality of life. Why is such an ambitious initiative proposed at this time? Since the late 1980s, the region's economic base has been deteriorating. Relative to other metropolitan areas, mobility and personal income have been in a steady decline, while poverty and unemployment rates have exceeded national averages. Operation Jump -Start is a regional economic development strategy designed to reverse these trends. If the region had maintained the economic position it had in the late 1980s, (4th in per capita income among major metros), it would: • Be sending $5.3 billion more tax dollars to Sacramento • Be reducing the budget deficit by 17% What is the strategy? Operation Jump -Start uses the energy of trade to develop jobs - construction, manufacturing and transportation jobs - that result in enhanced mobility through three transportation infrastructure projects. Specifically: 1. A dedicated toll truckway system running from the Los Angeles ports to Riverside and San Bernardino counties 2. East -west rail capacity improvements including increases in tracks, signals, rail yards, and highway -rail grade separations to mitigate congestion 3. A high-speed magnetic levitation (Maglev) train system connecting the region's transportation hubs and facilitating the development of a regional airport system Why were these projects selected? Southern California is facing a crisis in goods movement transportation. Freeway truck volume in 2025 is forecast to be 110% greater than today. Forecasted train traffic over the rail corridor between downtown Los Angeles and Inland Empire freight yards would fill seven tracks — currently 80% of the system is single and doublc track. Los Angeles International Airport is operating at near capacity and will not be able to handle the projected growth in passengers and air cargo over the next decade. What is the cost of the proposed transportation investment? The total estimated cost for all projects is $26.1 billion: Dedicated Regional Truckways System $16.5 billion I — 710 $2.2 SR -60 $4.3 I-15 $10.0 Rail Capacity Improvement Infrastructure Grade Separations $1.2 $2.2 $3.4 billion Maglev Initial Operating Segment $6.2 billion How will these investments be financed? Innovative financing methods are key to all these projects, limiting the need for the infusion of public dollars: 1. Trucks using the dedicated toll truckway system will be charged an average toll of $0.56 per mile. These user fees will back the issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds. TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act) loans will provide additional start-up capital. 2. Freight trains transiting the East-West Corridor will be charged an average fee of $5.39 per cargo container. These user fees will back the issuance of tax credit bonds. 3. The Initial Operating Segment (IOS) of the Maglev system, West LA to Ontario, will be financed through tax exempt bonds and TIFIA loans. What is the expected impact on regional employment and income? Operation Jump -Start will create approximately 370,000 new jobs within the next six years - 62,000 per year - primarily through privately funded investment. This will result in an additional infusion of $12.6 billion into the regional economy in the form of personal income. JU P -START go+orIinz Suvil,orn EcQrumlc Orcchnm When compared to the 17 largest metro regions, this region has experienced a steady decline: The Region's Report Card THE STATE OF THE REGION 2002 -rk-o14. Between 1990 and 2000, employment in the region increased 8% (only half the state's growth rate) Since 1990, unemployment rates have been consistently higher than in the nation Among the 9 largest metro regions, this region has the highest poverty rate among persons of all ages In 1999, 1 in 5 children under 18 were in poverty 1 Mobility Yon uI EN r I I • Since 1990, the region has been considuiitly iaiiltcd as the most congested metro region in the nation A SOUTHERN CAIIYORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Employment Income Mobility A- 6 G l a`... . r .t- ' Over 60% of imports pass = through to other markets Largest gateway for goods movement in the country Ports handle one third of all U.S. container traffic 2 Burgeoning Pacific Rim Trade will drive rapid growth in container traffic — 34,000,000 in 2025 An Economic Recovery Strategy •Use the energy of trade to develop jobs — high -quality construction, manufacturing and transportation jobs - to raise per capita income •Accelerate infrastructure investment with privately funded, revenue -backed projects An Economic Recovery Strategy •Reverse the erosion of regional competitiveness • Create jobs now and lay the long term foundation to develop basic industries • Improve quality of life through congestion relief and emission reductions ,-kn Economic Recovery Stratei. The creation of: 370,000 jobs within the nex • yea y Eli 62,000 per year, primarily through privately funded transportation infrastructure investment The injection of over: $26 billion into the SCAG region economy between 2005 and 201 3 JUMP-START Reversing Souihcrn California's Economic Dec:;:nc ,)R Brief Situation Overview Proposed Improvements Total Investment Financing Structure Dedicated Truckways System Truck Volume on Southern California Freeways In thousands Freeway 2002 2025 I-110 18.6 39.1 I - 405 22.3 42.6 I - 10 20.4 43.3 U.S. 101 20.7 43.4 I - 105 26.1 54.9 I-5 40.9 85.9 I-710 47.3 99.3 CA - 60 50.4 105.8 110% Average Increase JUMt^.3iAUl /074 User -Supported Regional Truckways System 1. calor, JUMP-START Regional Rdil Capacity 001RImprovement Program Intra-Regional High Speed Rail Maglev System Dedicated Truckways System SITUATION • Southern California Is facing a crisis in goods movement transportation. • Dramatic growth in traffic is running head -long into limited transportation funding and high infrastructure improvement costs. • Further gridlock will detrimentally impact the region's, as well as the nation's economic well-being. JUMP-STA P" 4 Dedicated Truckways System PROPOSED SOLUTION Construct a dedicated toll truckway system Charge an average toll of $0.56 per mile to cover construction and maintenance costs Issue tax-exempt revenue bonds backed by user fees mMv- P.SsTaar Dedicated Truckways System TOTAL INVESTMENT Capital Development Cost $16.5 billion FINANCING STRUCTURE Tax -Exempt Bonds TIFIA Loans Corridor East-West Corridor operating at capacity Single and double tracks account for over 80% of system Dedicated Truckways System Southern California Truck Lane System I-710 18.0 miles I-15 86.0 miles 5 East-West Corridor SITUATION • The railroads are barely recovering their cost of capital and lack the revenues for major improvements. • Adding more trains to current infrastructure will increase delays at rail crossings, increasing congestion and air pollution East-West Corridor PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS • Track capacity improvements to accommodate the forecast increase in operations: tracks, signals, yards, traffic control, etc. • An estimated 130 highway -rail grade separations to mitigate congestion JUMP-STA T Charge an average fee of $5.39 per container transiting the corridor to expand capacity Take advantage of the interest rate differential between private sector capital costs and tax -credit bonds East-West Corridor TOTAL INVESTMENT Rail Capacity Improvement $1.2 billion Grade Separations $2.2 billion $3.4 billion FINANCING STRUCTURE Tax Credit Bonds High Speed Maglev System SITUATION • Growth in passengers — 70 million (85%) more airline passengers • Growth in air cargo — 197% increase by 2020 J IIMY-11APT 6 Transportation Investment Economic -Stimulus Dedicated Regional Truckways System I-710 $2.2 SR -60 $4.3 I -15 $10.0 Rail Capacity Improvement Infrastructure $1.2 Grade Separations $2.2 $16.5 billion $3.4 billion Maglev Initial Operating Segment $6.2 billion $26.1 Billion IUMP_START Impact .. Employment Income In Billions TOTALTruckways 227,040 $7.8 Rail Investment 49,876 $1.7 Maglev -ISO 91,434 $3.1 1 Share of Average Wage Employment Imperial 0.3% 112.1% Los Angeles 33.2% 112.7% Orange 29.3% 116.3% Riverside 15.7% 128.3% San Bernardino 18.4% 125.2% Ventura 3.2% 119.8% JUMP-START 7 Impact on State Budget • Raising per capita income is critical • If the region had maintained its 4th pl000 ranking in per capita income it would: • be generating $23 billion this year in personal tax revenues for the state • Be sending $5.3 billion dollars more to Sacramento be reducing the budget deficit by 17% JUMP•START Next Steps 5. Streamline and accelerate the EIR/EIS process 6. Develop a simplified implementation structure 7. Initiate a regional educational advocacy program Rail Legislative Initiative Trip to Washington with Rail Capacity Improvement Delegation: Union Pacific BNSF CTCs Next Steps 1. Establish Operation Jump Start as SCAG's leaderslilp Initiative for thls year and the rest of the decade 2. Organize and conduct a Truckways Summit in late June with all stakeholders 3. Organize and conduct a Rail Capacity Improvement Legislative Initiative in June 4. Prepare and process supportive state and federal legislation P -START Truckways Summit Roundtable discussion with key policy makers including: Congressional Staff Representatives of National Associations State and Federal Officials CTCs Shippers Unions k ,u.nn�s7;n�T State Legislative Program 1. Pursue enabling legislation to facilitate revenue - backed project financing at the regional level (SB1794 Torlakson - introduced in a prior legislative session) 2. Access loans from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (CIEDB) in order to initiate pre -deployment work 3. Authorize Longer combination Vehicles (LCVs) to operate on the proposed truckways and further facilitate access to right-of-way JUMP-START 8 Federal Legislative Program 1. Address federal laws pertaining to LCVs on federal aid highways including Interstates 2. Authorize the imposition of tolls on federal -aid highways including Interstates 3. Further enable access to lower cost financing instruments including tax-exempt bonds, tax - credit bonds, and TIFIA loans 4. Authorize federal funding assistance for pre -deployment phase work What You D • 1. Jump on Board with Jump Start 2. Help create a regional base of support 3. Support the legislative agenda 4. Assign the Jump Start charge to the appropriate task forces: Goods Movement and Maglev 5. Actively participate in the Regional Advocacy Program SA Streamline EIR/EIS Process Perform Master Project EIR/EIS as an addendum to the existing Program EIR/EIS Advocacy Program 1. Educate/obtain buy -in of stakeholders 2. Work with lobbyists and legislative staff to flush out legislation 3. Educate/obtain support of state and federal legislators, key committee and legislative leadership, and other state and federal officials 4. Conduct media and public outreach campaign 9 i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET September 3, 2003 AGENCY TELEPHONE # ,�% ,/NAME /.�� ,, }�.,, i/ zy rte.,-n, fl-e.i�. U 5, f7 �- 3 ee /L'` t,,• c fp, �,/�'� ' 74C1 e 4- /ale' #17s/4id, ry kekc " 6'7g '-Cif S fr::- /frit Aim f -94------ /21 a re -4/0 i At,%`• ri•S %/3-3vo, " 722,9) '----;/-°- ./ &/C, t./ .2,9,---- 7' 0 _3a- $z- J-`, tia7v or �. ec!‘)\/1: C ff�jIC ' r a rQ/�x '�q' S72{�j6/,_—�l�ry 7 �' 1 (<'e /"j �J wry y�� E0'Vt". j ?_- l c) rriJJJ CA c r. v C Fa ' feG'l 4-5-3. ii4av app r ftl I'll/.GfYO 1 Cinrcet 0 , L,-3 1 LS,a t4 `‘,,NrCO 7t6 s‘3,v0,1 1 f _tl je — / .9) A-76, 9b/ 77- JCoO4e .I /'ls U-i Lide4•4 a1 ews,..""ei. iG-w►' ��et P���11 7th 1 '(,�.0 4172.5 • �� 2c + pC jj _ 4 r,::- q,, , _ �J. , 3fj .7 J C!,,C) /} oen 9,-7q. '!6 i?5:•)C t/-4-,4,..,,,,,,,.., t k 1 ,- Lt -,� G4-liT3O) 1/ / n3 C _ lei e E 4 1 5 � 1'i ti' `-- 6 �' ?f9l ► Li et )4: * -I Oar L -+.4_rJp� `v a- 4, 0 -. 41 f -� 9.x . 3- Al Tr /-4 I ci •7,+ ,1 l �l K^ +AJ rii L'- Cc "- e-, � '-Jr---1 4. 'c"c- ci - 9 �''�T 1 f?S' --- .4.\ • _ �7 (,, L O ( M C c)617 - c=c ------/67,4-67 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL September 3, 2003 Present Absent zf ,dam a a a F o -n -�7 a a .ate' a a a a a a a a a a County of Riverside, District County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs Cit y of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF 17/tir C OMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS: 2 kP AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: 47 - ADDRESS: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 DATE: q-3— eL EL. NO: , e,--7/., TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board pia (E-Ser �2e,�' PUBLIC SUBJECT OF f COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: r"&42 AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: , jo n ' e,cy/Z T-2 2- 77; LA Ji .1,t Leo vl e ADDRESS: r06.-ez j , C.ct 72 ! 56 TEL. NO: 78 REPRESENTING: "k7 BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 cif r DATE: %,310-• n J‘,b TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): CA TA Le- b le, loit/ NAME: 1e fL 5 DATE: / -- r ADDRESS: / 0-5-0 EL. NO: � l} C9 — .7/-5 REPRESENTING :+'///i/�/ ; BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: �" PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: 'LEI U I C j (�C�C -C DATE: ADDRESS: X60/ „OW( e TEL. NO: REPRESENTING: J 1. BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: cluen Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: j Q 'C A-1,3 NAME: �_ e- 11,,7 t -e �.�1 L.,9 DATE: I -3 ADDRESS: l 3 I ] , - L_-)C.,C ( 1 EL. NO: `) 3V REPRESENTING: IM u) BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: " U AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: ADDRESS: /71a3, ,46//el'' REPRESENTING: (7% Z- BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 DATE: `% 5 — CJ 3 TEL. NO: 7S-0 — 5'G 2 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) I AND SUBJECT(S): 71 C" �, �l �m �+ c� ' 0,4k.44_ N NAME: , r;(3 -�+6 DATE: ADDRESS: 1 1--1-1-9 e ate, 7L TEL. NO: -moo t 1 L REPRESENTING: a. BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: „ 0i'! v 1I' v4/ J ` C'4 ADDRESS: / v /+"'. r ' REPRESENTING: C 17� 41 cf Age -nit- kfrix-41. DATE: F7/5 BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: 80 -i7511100. TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF '111'714°44? �` COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: ^TAyy e. 1,QG rA E/Z DATE: ! — 6j ADDRESS: t 2/ 7 - TEL. NO: cloq .0195 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF , COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: DS,, - ‘‘Co; t o irp + AGENDA ITEM NO(S) f AND SUBJECT(S): ��,n� NAME: ` U Q1 �1 111Q cae DATE: 3 j ,y12.- 03 ADDRESS: IMS-0 trCk TEL. NO:0094 9_2dJ3y 7116(A- k � r Cun O/1. REPRESENTING: I BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: >4 PUBLIC COMMENTS: f ('Z£ c v A AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAMErgrilg'8A %a)c5&-11=. DATE: 5{` (5/03 o3 ADDRESS: /9 7S 7, , , 1 ,nuJ O TEL. NO: b E7 -o" ' z REPRESENTING: (T / s€LF BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: PUBLIC Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJE-CT(S):_ J NAME: f, ADDRESS: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 s R y DATE: a -n2, TEL. NO: TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board (L9 PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: G" PUBLIC COMMENTS: �\� cD AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECTIS): NAME: PI - DATE: ADDRESS: REPRESENTING: TEL. NO: -7 o / BUSINESS ADDRESS: �r �- TEL. NO: RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMENTS: t PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S)E /2 AND SUBJECT(S): L fL �ii�f� i :' NAME: ADDRESS: REPRESENTING°:= /F SUBJECT OF BUSINESS ADDRESS: Of RCTC 7/99 DATE: e),9--,(23 Q3 &. NO(b.Th -/,/2-s TEL. NO: r'I Ill+ Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): r -e -e waxy "'Rat / NAME: \I c3 tt to by ,44'0 ADDRESS: / d lc. 0 .r 'e TEL. N REPRESENTING: Pi 1 Ka %e DATE: / ` J - 03 Ack-Fr-c) 79 BUSINESS ADDRESS: / `/ RCTC 7/99 PC EL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: O/O e- ;eL,/ - -,",�, t r?,u, .J AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: DATE: i 'c ' ADDRESS: /6e S() ) rc-h S/ . TEL. NO: q0q- 7 -- Lys REPRESENTING: Al Gdfi, r /1/4 - BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COM AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): � iv) NAME: tiJ1 G k— 14 U 1' J7? P DATE: 9/3/0? 2(/f isL.:rt f • ADDRESS: /,4 -it= 4hcitve TEL. NO: 7d-r_r777 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: j AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: Ll 1. r, Ni -1"1 1 DATE: 9 - g - 03 ADDRESS: i 7 ci I f4k rte, TEL. NO: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO. Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): - 64-IP1-) (� )) - f/1 (10411' NAME: jL€ij& (b i) (-Ant )--)-- DATE: 9 I 1 (.7 - ADDRESS: \ 13 p r'�YT1ert._ U/1 TEL. NO: -f '% u, l'i,.,,4 s C cK_ gas r7C) 4 IS -0--9 3 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 9 wOU4) .im 1 i/-1 IeTEL. NO: 6 ' -� —O 7 1 1°v u Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 'jE 6 / - +654-34-41e.. DATE: ADDRESS: l U' . 1O TEL. NO: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): - I ,1 NAME: Or,,ti l 1-1 ck, S �.V. DATE: 9 - 3 -u ADDRESS: - b IL, TEL. NO: - ZO$6 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 4.1/I_ c..4) NAME: ? :.A`a ,� , N n7..TLiJ DATE: S%T 3 s3 ADDRESS: /Z`7 C-k-ti�C Pk1 TEL. NO: 77 -upt, 7 15 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 7 NAME: Levi /1 e. Jets r' n DATE: aka 4 f 'ills /e_ �{ ADDRESS: d u (r3 o REPRESENTING: S' e / P BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: (4C4/ a)F' AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 7 ( r /t o NAME: ADDRESS: (3 3 g • e eiv REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: 7o '77G-17 g J TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): ` C V f 1 ir<i}4'.� �NAME: r,-. 0c IM1 ti °\1,'\ DATE: 71,Li),:3 ADDRESS: I Q1 9\ t?„ -\\a -,f' 14^n,01 I \e_.M TEL1 . NO: 70?(,,,, REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) / AND SUBJECT(S): 1 0-j- a I 0 a NAME: etZ/✓ bdra %✓1 Ali S DATE: ADDRESS:/7 7d0 ( S -a TEL. N C edu. 92,--s-7 REPRESENTING: e A -L A4 BUSINESS ADDRESS: GZ e/j/O.y' 4-7)4,, TEL. NO0 Z) 7 ST -1i 3 RCTC 7/99 40-4-4.14-144.1, `'! Detach and submit to Clerk of -the —Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) COIL', AND SUBJECT(S): �,��� o NAME: Jeff (�,t i 6 DATE: ADDRESS: ) Z ,,� LA/ TEL. NO: REPRESENTING: G'4 Lii 1 BUSINESS ADDRESS: &51) S,7rta L c' S�" YCr),rl1 ,�'I`EL. NO: RCTC 7/99 -P/79 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) 7 ea) C v AND SUBJECT(S): A NAME: 1.) ,() al L e Y- DATE: 9 3-3 ADDRESS: / 7/ 5-0 St 6 /f.S c , (e f 1 TEL. NO: 7 7 ` 3'G ci REPRESENTING: -Se a4-qut BUSINESS ADDRESS: 3 i{ 1 W - &6t -LS TEL. NO: 7/(/ S"3Z RCTC 7/99 ©3' yl - 632.4 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF Ca ,Ja I Co - 7 y ecwa / COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: / AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: E e, C tit ,S 15 DATE: 9 - 3 - d 2 - ADDRESS: 17. Y TO 5 r , ti wo o dl LE,,, TEL. NO: 7S) - y 3 Y.- C. REPRESENTING: Woo) are S ' ( - a4 C 5 67 WI NIL/1114-1 (H 0 Pt) BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL. NO: RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME:_ ✓ -' ADDRESS: REPRESENTING: ./ r -3 DATE• �Ih�,}'� TEL. NO: (.700) co S-3- 6 /0 BUSINESS ADDRESS: r4'wi 4tgov TEL. NO: SOA-1 e RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: triVi AGENDA ITEM NO(S) —. - AND SUBJECT(S): '` C , ti Iii=' (-7 L Ill NAME:: 41 I /((t_ Ye 1 ( DATE: , 3 3 ' J C) 3 ADDRESS: 7/ 39 ,e.I,:1 ac b � F r� �l v"� /� TEL. NO:��C'�,� �� 5 t ; r -1, REPRESENTING: (f BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: PUBLIC Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: Z,,_, C__. , 6/0,J DATE: za43S, £,oee ADDRESS: _pEre'fs TEL. NO: 4 4014 REPRESENTING: ,1 A/c -Lk) /-f T9/3 BUSINESS y� ADDRESS: -726;11"e" TEL. NO: RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): .� NAME: ,r-�o 4or DATE:OB 9`, . 1 YADI- 03103 ADDRESS: I4lo'19 DeSC.CLIISo�c-* TEL. NO: Bp /311(0 REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: CA_ S O QPo SQ Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF LIA...1,44° COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJEC NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: ¢ 5 E REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 41- LOi< 1444-41-1~'? TEL. NO: 280-3ir� TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: ,e,-) AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBBJECTIS): NAME: C Ex � J 1 1 DATE: 9— L ! 0 ADDRESS: 4/0 / CJ YLIL TEL. NO: qqy-69(9/ REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 7 NAME: � � ' 4 DATE: 9 ADDRESS: / gOis .3 4freL 1 � TEL. NO: 7'C9 -l57 Z REPRESENTING: e ill.. BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: DATE: ADDRESS: TEL. NO: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board 0 PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: T(: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): ✓ .S NAME= /11 7)9(3)7-06—.) DATE: q/) ADDRESS: A/79/ 1Jena/C// P tV . NO: 7 cD —go') c. REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 / is L V c ; _Les TEL. NO: PUBLIC Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAM �. s. DATE: ADDRESS/9'991)�I /I �I � �! TEL. NO: REPRESENTING. • / / d, ) BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL. NO: RCTC 7/99 9 1)3 9 -Yu Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) _ AND SUBJECT(S): 7 ;04'1Q /moo 17"to ' y NAME: Tt /en,#(.3e G,„7 /1, DATE: ,' 3-o3 ADDRESS: 2/6 % .(a V/`,- . TEL. NO: 776-C3np REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: TEL. NO: RCTC 7/99 gee. vref ,, c, rcnre_cs( ADDRESS: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 7 �a J7L (r ,0 4a/1_ NAME: 47,0/7/41 4),,—/V REPRESENTING: DATE: Aflu, Y, 2 I 3 TEL. NO: 949-75' 9-0,4W BUSINESS ADDRESS: � j _ TEL. NO: p/ RCTC 7/99 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: c' AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): F✓r NAME: jT`� - ,Gf-o DATE: 9-7. "- 3 ADDRESS:/ 7s -g-6 444 / / TEL. NO: 77 77G G L GAP A404 -f ,P REPRESENTING: / :ys-P / _' BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: !�^ .- Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: - AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECTIS): 7i f,`et'v-='4`( NAME: ADDRESS:. ) 7 S 01:2-rei-tU 0 -UL — REPRESENTING: qq�`CL�. BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 DATE: TEL. NO: jh C :14 '4 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: (/ PUBLIC COMMENTS: ( A ( C e C p pz,/Z,/ AL AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: 1DM. Hj ,44 0 A DATE: 3D3 ADDRESS: (738/ ©$U5 i p/2 TEL. NO: Qp? 688 /h ti REPRESENTING: / p i /#9 C -R o UG BUSINESS ADDRESS: _ TEL. NO: Z gQ' g RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECTIS): r r NAME: kj(-1711\ Y T DATE: r2/ — 5 L3 r ADDRESS: , f h 1 S ' 77 i,-PLL TEL. NO: q ct) 9 .3 c7,5 REPRESENTING: 6)6 BUSINESS ADDRESS: 5,1- Yn TEL. NO: //q d -)--o 6 RCTC 7/99 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) '\ AND SUBJECT(S): L. -1 NAME: `] , r) I DATE: "5 O ADDRESS: f11�1��1 ci _ TEL. NO: L(Dc'? REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: