Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 28, 2022 Western Riverside County Programs and Projects MEETING AGENDA Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Time: 1:30 p.m. Date: March 28, 2022 Location: This meeting is being conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials recommending measures to promote social distancing. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ben J. Benoit, Chair/Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar Brian Berkson, Vice Chair/Guillermo Silva, City of Jurupa Valley Wes Speake/Jim Steiner, City of Corona Clint Lorimore/Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa/Malcolm Lilienthal, City of Hemet Bill Zimmerman/Dean Deines, City of Menifee Yxstian Gutierrez/Edward Delgado, City of Moreno Valley Ted Hoffman/Katherine Aleman, City of Norco Michael Vargas/Rita Rogers, City of Perris Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District II Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District V STAFF Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY Air Quality, Capital Projects, Communications and Outreach Programs, Intermodal Programs, Motorist Services, New Corridors, Regional Agencies/Regional Planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), Specific Transit Projects, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and Provide Policy Direction on Transportation Programs and Projects related to Western Riverside County and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:30 p.m. Monday, March 28, 2022 This meeting is being conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials recommending measures to promote social distancing. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION Join Zoom Meeting https://rctc.zoom.us/j/89495314861 Meeting ID: 894 9531 4861 One tap mobile +16699006833,,89495314861# US (San Jose) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) For members of the public wishing to submit comment in connection with the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Meeting please email written comments to the Clerk of the Board at lmobley@rctc.org and your comments will be made part of the official record of the proceedings as long as the comment is received before the end of the meeting’s public comment period. Members of the public may also make public comments through their telephone or Zoom connection when recognized by the Chair. In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, Executive Order N-29-20, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Committee meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee March 28, 2022 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee 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 Committee 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 Committee 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. 6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 1 7. FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM RESOLUTION Page 13 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-008 “Authorization for the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program for the Riverside County Free Rail Pass Program in the amount of $2,406,486”; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT STATUS AND REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS Page 17 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive an update on developments since the February 28, 2022 Committee meeting; 2) Direct staff to stop all work on the Mid County Parkway project (MCP) 3) Direct staff to deprogram funds committed to current and future work on MCP; 4) Direct staff to return to the Commission at a future date with recommendations to place these funds on another project, and; 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee March 28, 2022 Page 3 9. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Overview This item provides the opportunity for brief announcements or comments on items or matters of general interest. 11. ADJOURNMENT The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 25, 2022. AGENDA ITEM 6A MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE Monday, February 28, 2022 MINUTES 1.CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was called to order by Chair Ben J. Benoit at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom Meeting ID: 86279472653. This meeting was conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials recommending measures to promote social distancing. 2.ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Ben Benoit Edward Delgado* Jeff Hewitt Ted Hoffman Kevin Jeffries Linda Krupa Clint Lorimore Guillermo Silva Wes Speake Karen Spiegel Michael Vargas Bill Zimmerman *Arrived after the meeting was called to order. 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ted Hoffman led the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee in a flag salute. 4.PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5.ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 1 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 2 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 24, 2022 M/S/C (Speake/Krupa) to approve the minutes as submitted. 7. AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE FOR THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE NO. 2 FROM REDLANDS AVENUE TO RAMONA EXPRESSWAY Anne Mayer, Executive Director, introduced the item, explaining the Mid County Parkway (MCP) Project Construction Package No. 2 plans, specifications, and estimate was intended to be presented today for the Committee Members to consider an award of a contract to a design firm to start the design process for the second phase of the MCP Project as it has been an important priority for this Commission. RCTC received a letter from the city of Perris a couple of hours prior to the meeting raising concerns related to the scope of the project that was proposed as well as stating that the city is not interested in an interim project and will only be supportive of a fully developed freeway project as originally scoped. Anne Mayer recommended since there is a representative from the city of Perris staff who wants to speak to have David Lewis, Capital Projects Manager, go through part of the presentation to receive the background information and some historical reference on the project itself. She explained they will pause the presentation without getting into the procurement aspect so they can have a discussion and so that the city of Perris can raise their concerns directly before they proceed. At this time, Commissioner Edward Delgado joined the meeting. David Lewis presented the MCP Project Construction Contract 2, highlighting the following areas: • Project background  1998 - Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) selected the corridor  EIR/EIS process started in 2003  Project Report and Environmental Document approved in 2015  Environmental mitigation lands and permits acquired  2016 Strategic Assessment – staff directed to study fundable/buildable packages  First part: I-215 Placentia Ave Interchange under construction  City widening Placentia Avenue, Indian Avenue to Redlands Avenue  MCP part 2: new 3-mile roadway, Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway • Project Scope  Ultimate environmentally cleared MCP footprint in light blue  MCP part 2 in dark red: consistent with and allows for ultimate facility  Not connected to the State Highway System  2 lanes Redlands Ave to Wilson; 4 lanes Wilson to Ramona Expressway 2 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 3 (steeper section)  Preliminary construction cost estimate: $142 million (2022 prices) At this time, David Lewis turned it over to Anne Mayer. Anne Mayer expressed appreciation to David Lewis for providing the background information and stated there was more to the presentation related to the procurement process itself for the design package, but it was important to make sure they pause in the discussion for the city of Perris to be able to raise their concerns with their project and for there to be a conversation amongst the Committee Members about how to proceed. She explained understanding the city’s desire that the full corridor be built all at once and if RCTC had all the money they would be doing that, but unfortunately that is not the situation they are in. She wanted to allow the Committee Members and the city of Perris to make their comments and then she had some possible paths forward to provide once the conversation has occurred. Commissioner Michael Vargas expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer for having this discussion and stated obviously this project was being worked on before their current council, and they understood the project and the needs in the region. He expressed concern on behalf of the city council they have three issues, the first is the impacts to the city where this temporary road now is going to end in Redlands in the middle of some residential areas. There will also be trucks coming in that area there that is not designated as a truck route. Commissioner Vargas expressed strong concern for their second issue, which a high school is now in place that was not there at the beginning stages of this project, and they are cutting off a roadway at the rear of the campus that it is being utilized by a vast majority of their neighborhoods walking to school. El Nindo Avenue is going to be cut off and Wilson is going to be cut off, but they understood that because it was in the original plans, and everybody will be forced now down to Evans and that is basically one road to get to this high school. When schools are built this way, he can imagine the nightmare he will have with the constituents. He stated the third issue is with the environmental impact report (EIR) as this is a different alignment than was discussed in the original EIR so staff will probably discuss that further. Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services for the City of Perris, stated that Mayor Vargas highlighted the major points. He noted hopefully they received the city of Perris letter, but their major concerns are the fact that the circumstances when the EIR was originally prepared it does not accurately reflect what is occurring today. As Mayor Vargas stated there is a portion that is residential that is not really covered by the interim construction and so there are concerns of truck traffic potentially running through that area without appropriate mitigation measures. If they are going to leave Placentia Avenue alone there is no screening for potential people who live along the north and south side of Placentia Avenue particularly from Perris Boulevard all the way to the Perris Valley Storm Drain channel. He explained beyond that there are circumstances that were not originally contemplated and now it needs to be updated to reflect the circumstances of the school site, the residential area, and how this would impact the residential along 3 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 4 this area. The original design had more of a full freeway intersection so the fact that what they are proposing to move forward with would raise a lot of concerns for not only for their constituents, but also for their council members. Mr. Phung referred to the city of Perris’ letter and stated they are recommending at this time, RCTC not move forward with this interim design and work with staff to figure out a solution that is amicable. Lisa Mobley, Administrative Services Manager/Clerk of the Board, stated RCTC did not receive any other written comments other than the city of Perris letter that Anne Mayer announced earlier that came from the city manager and a copy of that letter was sent to Committee Members. Commissioner Wes Speake stated it dead ends there to Redlands as it was described, but there is a housing development that is directly across from it and asked if there is a new alignment that goes around that housing development. Anne Mayer requested for the project map to be displayed. Commissioner Speake stated on the extreme left side of the screen it looks like the original alignment goes through this housing development that is there, which is just off Redlands Avenue. Anne Mayer replied there are a number of impacts on residential units for the ultimate MCP. When the alignments were being considered there were other alignments to the north that did not have any impacts on residential or had impacts on residential areas. Ms. Mayer stated the alignment being seen here in blue was the city of Perris’ preferred alignment back in 2013. Commissioner Bill Zimmerman asked if that housing tract that Commissioner Speake mentioned is on the westside of where this would continue if it continued west if that is a new housing tract that recently came online after the original studies and approval of the alignment or has it been there for a while. Commissioner Speake noted it looks like a mobile home park. Anne Mayer stated she is not aware of new housing developments being built within this preferred alignment and city staff can correct her. She understood that when the EIR document was approved for this corridor that development was added to the city’s General Plan. She does not recall developments in this corridor coming through for development since that time and she would defer to the city, but normally RCTC would be notified of a development in that footprint. Commissioner Vargas stated he is not aware exactly also on those, there are quite a few homes there west of Redlands as Commissioner Speake brought up and about 17 to 20 homes if not more will be impacted and taken out at the ultimate built not at this temporary. He asked Mr. Phung if the houses were there before or after. Mr. Phung replied he believes those mobile homes were there at the time when this project was approved and wanted to get back to the Board. 4 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 5 Commissioner Vargas clarified that he is referring to the new homes that are between Redlands and Perris Boulevard immediately north of Placentia as those are the homes that are going to be taken out at the ultimate built out. He stated they will follow up with staff and the point is the houses are there now and they are not really addressing that because that was approved with the prior council as they chose this route. He clarified they are not doing the ultimate it is the temporary and now there is a high school that they just had the County and through RCTC also built sidewalks on El Nindo to help these kids and now they are going to get cut. Commissioner Vargas expressed his fear is public safety and those kids are going to hop that fence or wall and try to run across that highway because there are no stops at the top of Romana Express Highway and Bradley at Perris into Nuevo area. This is a one shot four lane down into two lanes highway and the first stop is not going to be until Redlands at the end of it so there is no breaking in between. He expressed concern these trucks are going to be coming down and he has kids that are probably going to want to take the short cut, which is his big fear as a mayor is the safety of his kids. Commissioner Karen Spiegel stated to Commissioner Vargas she certainly appreciates that. She explained this is a challenge when government moves slowly with all this process and asked Anne Mayer if they are seeing some challenges not including the three issues Mayor Vargas had brought up, but there is a lot of vacant land here and she is concerned that their General Plan makes sure they are not having things built, because this will be an ongoing issue with this whole project. Commissioner Spiegel expressed if there is nothing there when they started the process and now, they are building homes right in the way of the alignment as she was there in the beginning when they had to cut the alignment in half just to get the project going. This is something that they were all on board in the beginning and she realizes it was a different council, but there are some things they cannot up and change and it is just going to redirect everything, and she does not know how that works. Anne Mayer noted that they are straying from the procurement contract agenda item. She stated on the first comment there are a few suggestions for how they can proceed but they actually have not been moving that slowly. Ms. Mayer explained it took a long time to get the environmental document as they had to re do it because they eliminated the western 16 miles. Since it got approved in 2013, they have been systematically putting projects in place and as David Lewis mentioned the Placentia Interchange, the city of Perris asked for the Placentia Interchange to be constructed and be constructed first, it is going to open this fall, and they are funding the city of Perris widening of Placentia. RCTC has been slowly but surely trying to get it done with the funding that they have and many of the issues that have been raised are design issues. Ms. Mayer noted what to do with the truck traffic they have discussed potential solutions there, the high school access again the school was not there when they did the environmental document, but the corridor at the location of the crossing that corridor is elevated 40 feet in the air. There has been discussion about putting walls in and other ways of making sure they put in safe passage but issues being raised are design issues. She stated they cannot address the design issues and they cannot come to a solution if they do not have an engineering 5 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 6 contract to do all the assessment. She is aware there is a couple other comments but if this committee wants to continue discussing the pros or cons of the corridor or whether they should stop the project or not, or whether they want to re-evaluate their investment in the MCP and look at other projects they may have to continue that conversation and have that be a specific conversation at a future committee meeting. Commissioner Spiegel concurred with Ms. Mayer and stated where she was going with all these questions and comments is they have to get the city on board. She is aware the high school got there, but they cannot continue this process if things are being built where their design was initially done, and they need to make sure they are on board. They cannot take the bridge away, but these are ultimate benefits for their community, and they lived through it in Corona and there is good and bad, but in the process, they have to work together. Commissioner Spiegel concurred that this contract determines if they move forward but expressed if they are moving forward, they need the city as a partner and make sure that in the General Plan has these alignments on it and that some of this housing in some of these areas are going to be addressed. Commissioner Guillermo Silva concurred with Commissioner Spiegel and asked if they end up holding off or whatever the situation maybe, do they lose the current funding for that project, or does it get put away until there is enough to complete the entire project the way they want it. Anne Mayer replied she would not recommend moving forward with anything until or unless the city of Perris is in agreement that they can build an interim project. If the position is that it is the ultimate project or nothing, then likely their recommendation would be that RCTC reprogram the money that has been allocated here onto another project. These are funds within the Commission’s control and the Commission can choose to pivot to the State Route 71 Realignment, to Calajco Road, or the Ethanac Projects so it will not be lost to the Commission, but the money will be lost to the project. It is $1.4 billion corridor and that was in 2013 dollars, so she does not see there being sufficient funding to fund the whole corridor as requested. Commissioner Speake stated an area that was impacted by an interim project there are downsides that come to them as the positive part is that the project eventually gets done and gets closure and they see the benefit. He noted the average speed between Interstate 15 and State Route 241 today at 7:20 a.m. was 41 miles per hour, which is a substantial increase then what it was just a few years ago. There are benefits that come from an interim project and there are negatives that come from an interim project and having the city on board that knows their city is aware of what the impacts would be and the more those can be thought out the better and he concurred with Mayor Vargas it needs to be discussed to ensure the residents are protected and there is a great project and hopefully there is some way to come to that point. Commissioner Speake stated these interim projects are easier to chunk out but at the same time there are unintended consequences that come from them, and the city of Perris is in the best position to make that call. It would be good to hear what those changes would be in order to still make the 6 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 7 project or maybe those funds are reprogrammed in the short term, and they come back to try and find what the overall project is going to be. He is impressed by looking at the overall project not just from a dollar standpoint, but from an engineering standpoint so whether or not they start engineering an interim project now getting buy in from the city is very important. Commissioner Ted Hoffman asked Anne Mayer in reading the staff report for the engineering contract they already had approximately $13.5 million, which it was going to be for this project. Anne Mayer replied for the design work. Commissioner Hoffman stated for the design work and that money is still sitting there. Anne Mayer confirmed yes. Commissioner Hoffman clarified so what Ms. Mayer stated if they do not do this that money can be used on another part of this project or a different project. Anne Mayer replied she does not recommend that they take an action to award this engineering contract today as this Commission should not spend any more money on MCP if there is not political support for it. Commissioner Hoffman concurred. Anne Mayer stated if the $13.5 million is not allocated to this segment of the project they would recommend that it be programmed on a different project the Commission has not on MCP. Chair Benoit asked if there were other funds that were programmed towards this besides what is being seen in the staff report if there were any other construction dollars or earmarks for this project. Anne Mayer replied the project that is currently under construction, the Placentia Interchange, they would have probably not have proceeded with Placentia, but that is money that has already been spent. She thought they had money programmed on the city’s Placentia Widening Project, but she is unaware if that has gone to construction yet so that might be a small amount. Ms. Mayer stated there is the Sweeney Mitigation Property they rehabilitated near the river that they have some ongoing expenses. She noted Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Director, was providing the amount and Ms. Guizado said that RCTC has $36 million worth of federal funds programmed on right of way and it is obligated. That amount would probably have to be unprogrammed and potentially lose that federal funding for this project because it was already allocated. They would not recommend with proceeding with buying more right of way on the corridor if the project is not going to proceed. Ms. Mayer clarified the answer is yes there is money, but that money would need to be unprogrammed. Chair Benoit suggested to table this for today and work with the city on the items that Mayor Vargas brought up and if they can accomplish some of those items as far as the transportation of the high school and find some avenues there or not. Or find some other mitigation to this plan and then get it designed. Unless the city’s stance is that they just 7 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 8 do not want this interim project and if that is the case then it needs to be put on hold at this point until they can fund the entire project. Chair Benoit asked what the cost difference would be for building the permanent section there. Anne Mayer replied the whole corridor is $2 billion. Chair Benoit clarified Mayor Vargas is asking about this particular section. Anne Mayer stated for just that segment it would probably be several $100 million more. Commissioner Vargas stated the consensus of the council is if they are going to do it just do it to the ultimate the way it was originally planned because there would be an interchange at Evans Street off ramp. Chair Benoit clarified it is just for that section that is being discussed not the entire length. Commissioner Vargas replied yes, they are only referring to what is impacting them in the city. Chair Benoit suggested this should be brought back for some additional discussion. Commissioner Vargas wanted to highly encouraged Anne Mayer to come and give a presentation and to speak to his city council as well. Chair Benoit suggested to also be ready for what the dollar amount difference is and what they are asking for here, so they know what is being discussed. Anne Mayer replied she is happy to do so. Kenneth Phung stated he looked at the record for the residential area on the north side of Placentia between Redlands and Perris Boulevard those were built in 2005, so they were in construction during that time the council approved knowing that project was already in place. In regards to all the residential on the east side of the Perris Valley Storm Drain channel east of Evans that is all the county south of Ryder Street even including that school that is actually in the County. He is aware that the County also approved a tract in that area, and they approved it knowing that MCP is going through, he is uncertain if that is under construction yet or not. Commissioner Vargas clarified that the school is in the city and the borderline is half of Orange, the north side of Orange is County, and the south side is city. Chair Benoit clarified there is enough direction for staff at this point and they need to table this item. He hopes that they can work through these issues because if they do not, they will see this money get spent with plenty of other great project across this county. He expressed the sad part is that they have an EIR that was done and all of this hard work plus the physical investment that the Placentia Interchange has all been lost for not. He recognized having some more communication and hopefully bring this back. He clarified with Anne Mayer if there is no further comments or questions they will move on. Therefore, this item was tabled and no action was taken. 1) Award Agreement No. 21-31-119-00 to Jacobs Engineering Group to prepare plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the Mid County 8 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 9 Parkway Construction Package No. 2 from Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway (Project), in the county of Riverside and city of Perris, in the amount of $12,314,073, plus a contingency amount of $1,231,407 for potential changes in scope, for a total amount not to exceed $13,545,480, contingent upon obligation of federal Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) - Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds and federal formula STBG funds by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); 2) Approve the use of $5,686,000 of state Senate Bill 1 Local Partnership Program (LPP) Formula Cycle 3 funds for the Project design; 3) Approve the use of $6,313,592 of CRRSAA STBG funds for the Project design; 4) Approve the use of $1,545,888 of STBG funds for the Project design; 5) Authorize the Executive Director to make changes between fund types within the total amounts approved by the Commission to facilitate the most efficient use of funds; 6) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 7) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute Native American monitoring agreements in an amount not to exceed $50,000; 8) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the Project; and 9) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. MORENO VALLEY/MARCH FIELD METROLINK STATION TRACK AND PLATFORM EXPANSION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION, TRIBAL MONITORING, AND PROJECT FUNDING Bryce Johnston, Capital Project Manager, presented the Moreno Valley / March Field Metrolink Station Track and Platform Expansion Project, highlighting the following areas: • Project vicinity map • Perris Valley Line:  Began service in 2016  24 miles in length  Moreno Valley/March Field Station is roughly at midpoint  Project adds 2.7 miles double track to allow passing and multiple trains on the corridor concurrently  Project also adds second platform next to new track  Necessary for additional or reverse commute service • Procurement process and construction cost impacts • Agreements supporting construction • Additional funds needed for construction 9 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 10 • Requested actions and project calendar Commissioner Speake expressed it is being seen all over the place the fact that the price of everything has gone up. He stated going from $17 million to $22 million is not surprising and expressed appreciation that this is going forward as it is a much needed project. Commissioner Karen Spiegel clarified from the station the platform that is at the base to the one that is up north and asked which one was it and what is the distance between those. Bryce Johnston stated he is unaware of the extent of all the stations on the Perris Valley Line. Anne Mayer replied between Moreno Valley and Hunter Park. Commissioner Spiegel replied she would need to see the platform again. The map was displayed and Commissioner Spiegel noted it was Hunter Park. Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, stated probably seven, eight miles or so. Commissioner Spiegel stated it was thought that the one from Hunter Park to Downtown was awfully close, but that is closer than this if it is at least seven miles. She asked what the average distance between bases is. Sheldon Peterson replied typically five to seven miles is a good base when it gets too close then there are too frequent of stops but the station already exists there so this gives them a double platform and it will improve efficiencies. In response to Commissioner Spiegel’s question if it is utilized a lot to justify the double platform, Sheldon Peterson replied it is utilized, they are hoping it grows as UC Riverside has its pass center and it is a growing commercial area as well. M/S/C (Speake/Vargas) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 21-33-095-00 to Granite Construction Company, as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, for the construction of the Moreno Valley March Field Metrolink Station Track and Platform Expansion Project (Project) in the amount of $22,111,122, plus a contingency amount of $2,211,112, for a total amount not to exceed $24,322,234; 2) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 21-33-097-00 between the Commission and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for Construction of the Project in the amount of $2,421,000, plus a contingency amount of $242,100, for a total amount not to exceed $2,663,100; 3) Approve Agreement No. 22-33-035-00 with The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians for Construction Monitoring of the Moreno Valley/March Field 10 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 11 Metrolink Station Track and Platform Expansion Project in an amount not to exceed $25,000; 4) Approve an amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22- 2025/26 Short Range Transit Plan to program an additional $6,000,000 of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds for the Project; 5) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 6) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work pursuant to the agreement terms up to the total amount; and 7) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Anne Mayer announced: 9A. Staff opened bids for the Interstate 15 Interim Corridor Operations Project and the process has not yet been completed, which is why it is not at this committee today. So that they do not lose time, staff is taking it straight to the March 9 Commission meeting to approve the construction contract. 9B. The March 9 Commission meeting will either be held as a hybrid or in-person and that will be determined this week prior to the Commission agenda going out on Wednesday. 10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 10A. Commissioner Speake expressed appreciation to all his colleagues, staff, and to the Anne Mayer on how well things are working on State Route 91. He does check the 91 average speed every morning and it has been consistently wonderful. 10B. Commissioner Edward Delgado noted their next goal will be SR-60 in Moreno Valley because it is horrible. 11 RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 28, 2022 Page 12 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Mobley Administrative Services Manager/ Clerk of the Board 12 AGENDA ITEM 7 Agenda Item 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 28, 2022 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Beatris Megerdichian, Management Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2021/22 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Resolution STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-008 “Authorization for the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program for the Riverside County Free Rail Pass Program in the amount of $2,406,486”; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Commission’s Commuter Rail Program applies for various federal and state funds that are necessary to fund rail projects within Riverside County. The Commuter Rail Program is currently seeking approval to utilize $2,406,486 of formula Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) grant funding, administered by the California Department of Transportation, for the Riverside County Free Rail Pass Program (Program). Projects eligible for this funding need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support transit agencies in their effort to increase mode share. The Program will provide free Metrolink passes to riders in Riverside County. The Program would allow riders to sign up through RCTC’s existing Commuter Assistance website “IE Commuter” and be issued free passes through the Metrolink’s Mobile Ticketing Application. For riders without access to mobile devices, the Program would provide promotional codes to purchase the passes at ticket vending machines. This would help expand access to public transportation for disadvantaged and low-income populations and reduce the financial barriers to trying public transportation. In addition, as an IE Commuter partner, RCTC is partnering with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority to make the free passes available to both San Bernardino and Riverside County residents. Free Metrolink passes would attract new riders, incentivize existing riders to take more trips, and contribute to greenhouse gas emission reduction. The Program is anticipated to begin in Fall of 2022 and would offer free passes for a minimum of two-years. 13 Agenda Item 7 FISCAL IMPACT As required by the LCTOP grant guidelines, Resolution No. 22-008 is needed to authorize use of the funds on free passes and authorize the Executive Director to execute the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent forms. The resolution is required to submit and file the grant; therefore, staff recommends adoption of the resolution related to the FY 2021/22 LCTOP grant. Funding received from this grant will be included in the FY 2022/23 budget and will be reflected in Commission’s FY 2022/23 Short Range Transit Plan. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2022/23 Amount: $2,406,486 Source of Funds: LCTOP Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 034198 415 41511 0000 103 25 41501 revenues Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/18/2022 Attachment: Resolution No. 22-008 14 RESOLUTION NO. 22-008 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES AND AUTHORIZED AGENT FORMS FOR THE LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP) FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FREE RAIL PASS PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,406,486 WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is an eligible project sponsor and may receive state funding from the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) for transit projects; and WHEREAS, the statutes related to state-funded transit projects require a local or regional implementing agency to abide by various regulations; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 862 (2014) named the Department of Transportation (Department) as the administrative agency for the LCTOP; and WHEREAS, the Department has developed guidelines for the purpose of administering and distributing LCTOP funds to eligible project sponsors, including local agencies; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission wishes to delegate authorization to execute the Certification and Assurances and the Authorized Agent documents for the LCTOP in relation to the Riverside County Free Rail Pass Program, and any amendments thereto, to Anne Mayer, Executive Director; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission wishes to implement the LCTOP project(s) listed above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission that the fund recipient agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in the Certification and Assurances and the Authorized Agent documents and applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines for all LCTOP funded transit projects. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Anne Mayer, Executive Director be authorized to execute all required documents for the LCTOP program and any Amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission that it hereby authorizes the submittal of the following project nomination(s) and allocation request(s) to the Department in FY2021-2022 LCTOP funds: (Continued on next page) 15 List project(s), including the following information: Project Name: Riverside County Free Rail Pass Program Amount of LCTOP funds requested: $2,406,486 Short description of project: The Riverside County Transportation Commission will use LCTOP funds to provide free Metrolink passes to encourage new passenger rail riders within Riverside County. Benefit to a Priority Populations: Project improves combined housing and transportation affordability. Amount to benefit Priority Populations: $2,406,486 Contributing Sponsors (if applicable): City of Corona, PUC99314: $7,197; City of Riverside, PUC99314: $8,329; Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, PUC99314: $2,966. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of April 2022. V. Manuel Perez, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 16 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP) FY 21-22 ALLOCATION APPLICATION 1 Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee March 28, 2022 Beatris Megerdichian, Multimodal-Management Analyst About LCTOP 2 •Provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies and regional entities. •Goal to reduce GHG emissions, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. •Funds are allocated by formula based on population and transit revenue. •Administered by Caltrans LCTOP FY 21-22 Allocation Application March 28, 2022 FY 21-22 LCTOP Allocation 3 •FY 21-22 Allocation: $2,406,486 •Program: Riverside County Free Rail Pass Program •Serves Disadvantaged Community, Low-Income Communities, and Low- Income communities within ½ mile of a Disadvantaged Community LCTOP FY 21-22 Allocation Application March 28, 2022 Program Overview 4 •Provide FREE Metrolink passes to residents and students in Riverside County (for up to three months) •Partnership with IE Commuter and SBCTA o Both San Bernardino and Riverside County residents will be offered free passes •Expands current IE Commuter Rideshare Incentives •Program timeframe: Minimum of 2-years •Beginning in Fall 2022 LCTOP FY 21-22 Allocation Application March 28, 2022 •RCTC’s IE Commuter sign up as Metrolink Corporate Pass Partner to receive Metrolink passes. •Riders sign up for an IE Commuter account. •To be eligible, riders upload proof of residency/student status. o Request type of ticket, download Metrolink Mobile App and provide Metrolink Mobile Ticketing ID. •Staff verifies information and ticket is uploaded to riders Metrolink Mobile app account. o For riders without mobile devices, promotional codes will be provided to purchase passes at ticket vending machines. •Each month Metrolink provides invoice, tickets are verified and paid with LCTOP funds. How will this work? 5 LCTOP FY 21-22 Allocation Application March 28, 2022 Program Marketing 6 •Use IE Commuter website to market and promote free Metrolink passes •Partner with SBCTA and Metrolink to expand promotion and marketing LCTOP FY 21-22 Allocation Application March 28, 2022 1.Adopt Resolution No. 22-008 “Authorization for the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program for the Riverside County Free Rail Pass Program in the amount of $2,406,486”; and 2.Forward to the Commission for final action. Recommendation 7 March 28, 2022 LCTOP FY 21-22 Allocation Application QUESTIONS? 8 AGENDA ITEM 8 Agenda Item 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 28, 2022 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: David Lewis, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director SUBJECT: Mid County Parkway Project Status and Reprogramming of Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive an update on developments since the February 28, 2022 Committee meeting; 2) Direct staff to stop all work on the Mid County Parkway project (MCP); 3) Direct staff to deprogram funds committed to current and future work on MCP; 4) Direct staff to return to the Commission at a future date with recommendations to place these funds on another project, and; 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. Update Since Previous Committee Meeting At its February 28, 2022 meeting, the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee (Committee) received a presentation on this item. The Committee received a letter from the city of Perris (City) just prior to the meeting raising objections to the interim project (Attachment 1) and received verbal comments from the City as well. In response to these comments, staff was directed to meet with the City at the earliest possible opportunity to address these objections. The Executive Director and staff attended the March 8, 2022 City Council meeting and presented information concerning the interim project (see Attachment 2). The presentation included a discussion of the history of the project development, prior City Council decisions choosing project Alternative 9, and its conditional approval of the project. In addition, the council was informed of commitments made by the Commission in 2018 in the settlement agreement with various petitioners due to a lawsuit brought against the environmental document. These commitments include air filtration systems and sound insulation to certain schools and residences close to the Project. In the discussion that followed, the City Council expressed the concerns raised to the Committee on February 28, and mentioned other concerns, including impacts of the alignment through the city (Alternative 9) that was chosen, as well as the need for the project itself. 17 Agenda Item 8 Staff followed up with a letter to the City on March 11, 2022 (Attachment 3), which committed to resolving the outstanding issues by working closely with the City throughout the design process. Three specific commitments were included in the letter: 1. Provide a safe bridge-type undercrossing at El Nido Avenue to maintain continuous vehicle and pedestrian access to schools. 2. Maintain the San Jacinto trail under the proposed Project. 3. Analyze expected truck traffic on the Project and develop a strategy to restrict truck traffic to the City’s desired routes. Study the impacts of vehicular traffic expected to use Placentia Avenue and its impact on residential areas and Paragon Park, including noise, air quality, and speed, and provide appropriate mitigation measures. Commission and City staff have communicated extensively in the last month attempting to reach solutions to City Council concerns. Although staff has committed to the three items above, we have been unable to address primary concerns about traffic impacts related to land use decisions to the east of Perris. On Tuesday, March 22, the City Council met in closed session and its decision is documented in a letter dated March 23, 2022. The letter states that the City will support the project only if the Commission prohibits truck traffic on the MCP through the city of Perris (see Attachment 4). The Commission is unable to make this commitment because it is inconsistent with the need and purpose of this critical regional corridor and is not in the Commission’s legal purview to do so. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission stop all work on MCP, deprogram funds committed to current and future work, and return to the Commission with recommendations to place the funds on another project. There are two MCP-related components that are currently far along in the project development process which are therefore excluded from the recommended actions to stop work and deprogram funds. It is recommended that the Commission complete the Placentia Interchange project (currently about 70 percent complete) and meet the commitments in its existing agreement with the City to provide right of way (ROW) and storm drain funding for its Placentia Avenue Widening project from Indian Avenue to Redlands Avenue. These improvements were requested in the original conditional approval by the City in 2013. Upon completion, these facilities will provide limited local benefit instead of the regional benefits intended by the Commission’s investments. 18 Agenda Item 8 Funding Funding planned for the anticipated design services consisted of $5,686,000 of Senate Bill 1 Local Partnership Program Formula Cycle 3 funds, $6,313,592 of Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds, and $1,545,888 of STBG funds. Previously committed funding for (ROW) for MCP includes $7,143,000 of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee-Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and $36,939,000 of STBG funds. It is recommended that all planned, previously approved, and programmed funds be deprogrammed and reallocated to other projects to be determined by the Commission. From Previous Staff Report: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The MCP is a proposed 16 mile east-west highway that will stretch from State Route-79 in the Hemet Valley to I-215 at Placentia Avenue in the city of Perris. In 1998, the Commission began work on a process to locate new major transportation facilities to serve the current and future transportation needs of Western Riverside County while preserving critical habitat. This process, called the CETAP, represented a balanced approach to the provision of important transportation improvements, while limiting the impacts on communities and the environment. The CETAP corridors are an integral part of the County’s general plan and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). As part of the CETAP process, the Commission approved moving forward with project level environmental studies for the MCP project on December 13, 2003. At its April 2015 meeting, the Commission as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certified the final environmental impact report, adopted findings pursuant to CEQA, adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopted a statement of overriding considerations, and approved the MCP project. As the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act, FHWA approved the final environmental impact statement on April 15, 2015, and issued a record of decision for the MCP project in August 2015. In December 2015, the Commission purchased 154.3 acres of land (referred to as the Sweeney parcel), which satisfied the majority of the MSHCP habitat requirements for the entire MCP project. In July 2020, the Commission purchased 32.63 acres of land (referred to as the San Timoteo Canyon parcel), which satisfies the remaining environmental mitigation requirements for the MCP Project. DISCUSSION: As the Commission developed its Strategic Assessment, which was approved in January 2016, it was recognized that in order to deliver the major new corridor projects such as the MCP and 19 Agenda Item 8 79 Realignment, separate smaller construction packages would have to be developed that are fundable and buildable, and at the same time provide immediate public benefit. Staff was directed to study phasing and prioritization alternatives to determine if/how projects can be scaled or deferred to reflect funding constraints and state and federal policy challenges. Subsequently, at its January 2016 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to proceed with design and ROW acquisition for the first construction package, the I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange project. At its October 24, 2016, Commission meeting, the Commission authorized the acquisition of ROW and mitigation property for the entire MCP in accordance with the Commission’s ROW policies and procedures. At its June 2020 meeting, the Commission approved the construction contract for the I-215/Placentia Avenue interchange project, which is scheduled for completion in September 2022. Although the approved environmental document anticipates that the MCP will ultimately be a State-owned facility, Caltrans has indicated that they would not accept ownership or maintenance of MCP until the facility is complete, which could be many years from now. Because of this, and also due to the fact that the state’s current policies do not support additional capacity on the state highway system, staff has been working with the County and the city of Perris to scope this Project in a way that provides a buildable, fundable project that provides immediate public benefit and meets the local agency needs for safety and maintenance. The MCP Construction Contract #2 Project would have constructed approximately 3 miles of the 16-mile MCP Project and will consist of one mixed flow lane in each direction from Redlands Avenue to Wilson Avenue, and two lanes in each direction from Wilson Avenue to Ramona Expressway. The new facility would have had 4-foot inside shoulders, a median barrier, and 2- foot paved outside shoulders, with wider dirt shoulders to accommodate disabled vehicles, and included the construction of bridges over the Perris Valley Storm Drain, El Nido and Evans Road. A detailed map is included as Attachment 5. Figure 1. MCP Construction Package No. 2 Map 20 Agenda Item 8 Attachments: 1) Letter from city of Perris 2) Presentation to the city of Perris City Council 3) Letter responding to city of Perris 4) Letter from city of Perris dated March 23, 2022 5) Exhibit Map – Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway 21 CITY OF PERRIS Office of the City Manager 101 NORTH “D” STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 TEL: (951) 943-6100 February 28, 2022 Riverside Count Transportation Commission Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Agenda Item No. 7 of the February 28, 2022 RCTC Meeting – Mid County Parkway Project Construction Package No. 2 from Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway Dear Commissioners, The City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on this item (Mid County Parkway Project Construction Package). The city has been involved for many years with RCTC in this major transportation facility to serve the current and future transportation needs of Western Riverside County. While we understand that there is an opportunity for interim improvements to be constructed at this time, the city has the following concerns that will result from constructing the proposed interim realignment: 1)The I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange is currently under construction and was originally designed to connect directly with an interchange at Redlands Avenue. The proposed interim alignment proposes to stop construction at Redlands Avenue, thereby directing traffic to travel south to Placenta Avenue, and then westerly through a residential area in order to get to the I-215 freeway. The section between Redlands Avenue and Perris Blvd. is not a truck route and impacts/mitigation to this residential area were not evaluated under the EIR for this project. Impacts to traffic and noise were not considered in the EIR for this change to the original alignment. 2)The proposed interim alignment removes the Evans Road interchange. This is a significant change to the original design of the MCP alignment. Traffic impacts under the EIR for this change have not been assessed. 3)The proposed interim alignment does not take into account that a new high school been constructed since the approval of the EIR for the project. The proposed interim alignment cuts access across El Nido Avenue for students attending Orange Vista High School. These are impacts that were not evaluated in the EIR and circumstances have significantly changed since the project design approval that warrants additional review and mitigation. ATTACHMENT 1 22 Under the Final Project Report, it states that if a decision is made after project approval to construct the MCP project in phases, then RCTC would identify the impacts and needed mitigation measures of a first phase and would compare these to the impacts and mitigation measures addressed and committed to in the Final EIR/EIS through an Environmental Revalidation, which would determine whether an EIR Addendum, Supplemental EIR, or Subsequent EIR would be required under CEQA, and whether a Supplemental EIS would be required under NEPA. If new adverse impacts or mitigation are identified for the first phase or a subsequent phase, then RCTC would prepare supplemental environmental documentation for approval of that project phase. The proposed interim alignment and improvements will result in long term impacts to the City of Perris that were not evaluated under the original EIR. The city would like to take this opportunity to request that the proposed interim Mid County Parkway alignment not move forward at this time until there is funding available to move forward with the ultimate design within the City of Perris. The proposed interim improvements have not been reviewed for impacts on Perris residents and traffic. Sincerely, City Manager City of Perris CC: Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris Rita Rogers, Perris Councilmember Eric Dunn, City Attorney Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services Attachments: 23 24 25 26 MID COUNTY PARKWAY  PROJECT City of Perris Council Meeting March 8, 2022 Anne Mayer, RCTC Executive Director 1 ATTACHMENT 2 27 MID COUNTY PARKWAY HISTORY 2 •Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) initiated in 1998 –Integrated land use, transportation, and conservation –Model for  nation •Transportation (CETAP) & Conservation (MSHCP) ‐adopted 2003 •Mid‐County Parkway  (MCP) from CETAP, began studies 2003 •EIR/EIS approved 2015 28 3 MCP ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED 29 CITY OF PERRIS  RESOLUTION NO. 4428 4 •City project approvals June 2011 –City selected the alignment (Alternative 9)  that was then adopted by Commission –Required Placentia IC to be part of MCP, first  phase –Construction to start at west end of  MCP, recognizing entire facility would not be  built at once –Ethanac corridor investigated Placentia interchange construction is 70% complete Ethanac studies proceeding MCP2 design –using Alt 9 30 5 COMMISSION ACTIONS SINCE 2011 •Acquired right of way, mitigation land, permits •2016 Strategic Assessment – due to funding realities, staff   directed to develop fundable/buildable packages •Placentia Interchange •Placentia Avenue improvements with City •Spent $163+ million (since inception) •Programmed $58 million for  future work 31 6 MCP CONSTRUCTION COST •Entire MCP: $2.8 billion •Ultimate MCP in City of Perris: $1.4 billion (displaces 92 dwellings) •MCP2 (proposed interim): $231 million (displaces 1 dwelling) 32 7 CITY OF PERRIS CONCERNS •Traffic/air/noise  impacts of interim condition •Revalidation will be done with design, analyzing impacts •Reduction/mitigation of impacts will be developed with City •E.g. soundwall along Placentia, etc. •New high school built after the MCP approved •0.6 miles away from project •El Nido is cul‐de‐sac in EIR; MCP is 40' higher •Evans Road provides similar length path 33 8 RCTC NEXT STEPS •EIR has limited shelf life, requires  progress •Commission funds have time constraints •City Council support essential for  interim project •March 28 RCTC Committee project reconsideration •April 13 RCTC Board action 34 QUESTIONS 9 35 March 11, 2022 Ms. Clara Miramontes, City Manager City of Perris 101 North “D” Street Perris, CA 92570 SUBJECT: Response to the City of Perris’ Concerns regarding the Mid -County Parkway Project Construction Contract 2 (MCP2) De ar Ms. Miramontes: Thank you for communicating your interest in the Mid-County Parkway Project Construction Contract 2 (MCP2) and for discussing your concerns with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). RCTC is in receipt of City of Perris’ (City) letter dated February 28, 2022, which requested that RCTC not move forward with design of MCP2 at this time, due to impacts of the interim project. On March 8, 2022, RCTC presented information about the project at the Perris City Council meeting. At this meeting, the council expressed its concerns with the MCP2 Project. In response, RCTC would like to express its commitment to resolve these concerns in cooperation with the City, by agreeing to the following: 1. Provide a safe bridge-type undercrossing at El Nido Avenue to maintain continuous vehicle and pedestrian access to schools. 2. Maintain the San Jacinto trail under proposed MCP2. 3. A nalyze expected truck traffic on MCP2 and develop a strategy to restrict truck traffic to the City’s desired routes. Study the impacts of vehicular traffic expected to use Placentia Avenue and its impact on residential areas and Paragon Park, including noise, air quality, and speed, and provide appropriate mitigation measures. These measures are subject to technical feasibility and environmental analysis to ensure that none of them results in a greater environmental impact than the previously approved EIR/EIS for Mid-County Parkway. RCTC understands the City’s concerns and anticipates we will be able to incorporate these features as we proceed with design. Th e City’s involvement and participation during the design phase is crucial to the MCP2 project’s success. With the commitments outlined above, we hope to garner the City’s support of the MCP2. We look forward to your response on this regionally important project. As stated at the c ouncil meeting on March 8, we anticipate discussion of this issue at the March 28 Western County Programs and Projects committee meeting. Should you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact me at (951) 787-7141 or AMayer@RCTC.org. Sincerely, Anne Mayer Executive Director ATTACHMENT 3 36 CITY OF PERRIS Office of the City Manager 101 NORTH “D” STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 TEL: (951) 943-6100 March 23, 2022 Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Mid County Parkway Project Construction Package No. 2 (MCP2) from Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway (Interim Improvements) Dear Ms. Mayer, The City of Perris appreciates RCTC’s collaboration in working with the city to address concerns related to the MCP2 improvements and thanks you for your presentation at the May 8, 2022, City Council meeting. The City Council has carefully considered the impacts that the MCP2 project may create on the city, such as traffic, air quality, and noise impacts to residential areas, city streets, and a local park. For these reasons, the City Council majority can only support the MCP2 project provided that there is “no truck traffic” allowed, thereby prohibiting truck traffic along the MCP2 corridor entering or traveling through the City of Perris. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Sincerely, City Manager City of Perris CC: Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris Rita Rogers, Perris Councilmember Eric Dunn, City Attorney Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director ATTACHMENT 4 37 10 215 220 225 23 0 235 240 245 250 255 260 275 280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 34 5 5 5 265 270 25 30 35 10 350 35 5 360 36536 0 365 365 355 360 30 25 35 40 45 50 34 5 3 5 0 355 255 260 265 15 20 25 3 0 270 215 220 225 230 235 22 0 225 230 215 270 275 280 285 255 260 26 5 265 270 27 5 275 280 285 290 345 350 355 360 260 26 5 270 275 280 370 375 380 3 7 0 375 370 365 375 380 9 240 1 2 3 4 245 6 7 8 9 250 1 2 3 4 255 6 7 8 9 260 1 2 3 4 265 6 7 8 9 270 1 2 3 4 275 6 7 8 9 280 1 2 3 4 285 6 7 8 9 290 1 2 3 4 295 6 7 8 9 300 1 2 3 4 305 6 7 8 9 310 1 2 3 4 315 6 7 8 9 320 1 2 3 4 325 6 7 8 9 330 1 2 3 4 335 6 7 8 9 340 1 2 3 4 345 6 7 8 9 3 5 0 1 2 3 4 35 5 6 7 8 9 360 1 2 3 4 365 6 789370123437567893801234 PER R IS V A LL EY STO RM D R AIN EVA N S Rd RAMO N A Exwy PLACENTIA Ave W ILSO N Ave EL NIND O Ave EUREKA St WALNUT St LEGEND: 2000 Mid County Parkway Project 100 Feet Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway Construction Contract 2 MCP Interim Buildout Package Parcel Boundary Bridge Toe of Fill Top of Cut Ultimate MCP Plan Exhibit REDLAN D S Ave ATTACHMENT 5 38 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT UPDATE Recommended Actions Anne Mayer, Executive Director 1 UPDATE 2 •02/28 Perris letter with concerns •03/08 Perris City council meeting /presentation •03/11 RCTC letter to Perris committing to: 1.Bridge undercrossing at El Nido 2.Maintain San Jacinto trail 3.Direct truck traffic to the City’s desired routes, mitigate impacts of traffic on Placentia •03/23 Perris letter: prohibit trucks •1998 -Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) selected the corridor •EIR/EIS process started in 2003 •Project Report and Environmental Document approved in 2015 •Environmental mitigation lands & permits acquired 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND •2016 Strategic Assessment –staff directed to study fundable/buildable packages •First part:I-215 Placentia Ave Interchange under construction •City widening Placentia Avenue, Indian Avenue to Redlands Avenue •MCP part 2: new 3-mile roadway, Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway 4 PROJECT BACKGROUND •Ultimate environmentally cleared MCP footprint in light blue •MCP part 2 in dark red: consistent with and allows for ultimate facility •Not connected to the State Highway System •2 lanes Redlands Ave to Wilson; 4 lanes Wilson to Ramona Expressway (steeper section) •Preliminary construction cost estimate: $142M (2022 prices) 5 PROJECT SCOPE 6 MCP FUNDING Existing Funding Dollar Amount Planned $13,545,481 Programmed $44,082,000 Total $57,627,481 Recommended Actions 7 1.Stop all work on the Mid County Parkway project 2.Deprogram funds committed to current and future work on MCP 3.Return to the Commission at a future date with recommendations to reprogram funds 4.Forward to the Commission for final action MARCH 28, 2022 QUESTIONS 8 EETTIRIRKKAALL CITY OF PERRIS TRUCK ROUTES LEGEND: 215 CALIFORNIA INTERSTATE 215 CALIFORNIA INTERSTATE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED JANUARY 11TH, 2022 - EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 10TH, 2022 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL MARCH 28, 2022 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I X  County of Riverside, District II X  County of Riverside, District V X  City of Corona X  City of Eastvale X  City of Hemet X  City of Jurupa Valley X  City of Menifee X  City of Moreno Valley X  City of Norco X  City of Perris X  City of Wildomar X 